London Borough of Newham (22 018 007)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems when Mr X moved house. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the problem with Mr X’s council tax bill. There is no continuing significant injustice from the delay issuing the council tax reduction letter. The law prevents us investigating leasehold-related matters. It would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court about alleged damage to health.
The complaint
- Mr Y complained for his relative Mr X that, when Mr X moved house, the Council: failed to send a final council tax bill for the old address to the new address; delayed sending a council tax reduction (CTR) cessation notification letter; and has failed to send a refund and closing account statement for leasehold service charges at the old address. He says this caused stress and worsened the health problems of Mr X and his family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
- We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
- The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of housing let on a long lease by a council that is a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)
- The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. I invited the Council to agree a remedy.
My assessment
Alleged damage to health
- The allegation the Council’s actions worsened Mr X’s and others’ health problems is essentially a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 5 applies to this point. There might be some cost to court action but that in itself does not automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not legally straightforward. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider this. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court for a decision on this point. I have not considered this point further.
Not sending a closing council tax bill for old address to the new address
- If we investigated this point, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because the Council has already admitted fault for not sending this. The Council compounded that fault by still not sending the bill, despite its final response claiming to have attached it and despite Mr X advising he had not received such an attachment. This has caused some avoidable uncertainty and inconvenience.
- We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice here by sending Mr X the final bill by post to his new address. The Council agreed.
Delay sending letter about ending CTR
- The Council has already accepted fault for this. After Mr X chased this point, the Council sent him the letter and apologised. So this point is no longer outstanding.
- Having to chase the matter was inconvenient for Mr X. He had some uncertainty while awaiting the letter. However, I do not consider any injustice to Mr X that we can consider is significant enough to warrant asking the Council to do more than it has done on this point.
- Mr X wants to know why the notice was not sent sooner. It is not our role to get answers to every question someone might have. In the circumstances, it would be disproportionate to devote time and public money to investigating this question.
Leasehold service charges at the old address
- This point concerns the Council’s management of housing let on a long lease. Therefore the restriction in paragraph 4 applies. We cannot consider this point.
Mr X’s wish for £2,000 ‘compensation’
- Mr X would like £2,000 'compensation' for the Council’s faults. The Ombudsman does not assess damages or award compensation as the courts do. We sometimes recommend a symbolic payment to recognise avoidable distress. However, that would typically be a small sum, far less than Mr X seeks. In the circumstances of this complaint, I am not persuaded it is necessary to ask the Council to make a symbolic payment.
Agreed action
- To its credit the Council agreed to post the final council tax bill for Mr X’s old address to his new address within two weeks of today.
- The Council also offered to pay Mr X £200 to recognise the Council’s errors. I had not suggested that payment, for the reasons given above. Nevertheless, the Council offered it, so should pay it within one month of today. I do not consider any other remedy is necessary.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the problem with the council tax bill; there is no continuing significant injustice from the delay issuing the CTR letter; and we cannot consider the leasehold matters. It would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court about the alleged damage to health.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman