Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. On the central point about alleged failure to obey a court order, Mr X can reasonably take court action. We cannot consider actions related to the Council’s management of social housing. Whether Mr X should receive his court costs and compensation are properly matters for the courts, not us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not paid him money in accordance with a court order, and about some related matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
5. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by an organisation concerning a matter which the law says we cannot investigate. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))
6. 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)
7. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Some of the background to the events complained of involved the Council’s actions as landlord of Mr X’s social housing concerning disrepair and alleged rent arrears. The restriction in paragraph 3 prevents us considering those actions and anything ‘in connection with’ the Council’s actions as landlord.
11. The Council settled a disrepair claim by making a payment, but it offset that payment against alleged rent arrears rather than paying the money to Mr X. The offsetting was ‘in connection with’ the management of social housing, so the restrictions in paragraphs 3 and 5 prevent us considering that.
12. There was then court action between Mr X and the Council. A court order said that, depending on the result of a pending benefit claim, the Council should pay Mr X some money. Mr X and the Council disagree about whether the Council has obeyed that order. Mr X can ask the court to enforce the order. So the restriction in paragraph 6 applies. Mr X knows this, as he told the Council if it did not pay him, “I will enforce the judgement through the court and extra costs will [be] added.” The possible cost and effort of court action to enforce the order do not make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to take such action. It is for the court, not us, to interpret what the order meant and whether the Council has properly complied. Mr X could ask the court for his costs if any action to enforce the order succeeds.
13. Mr X wants the reimbursement of costs he incurred in the court action. In any court action, it is for the court to decide whether to award costs. It is not for us to consider that question later. I understand Mr X asked the court for his costs when the court action ended, but the court did not award costs. In that case, the point was aired in court and it is not for us to interfere with that. Even if Mr X did not ask the court for costs, he could reasonably have done so as part of the court action. Either way, it is not for us to step into something that is the court’s role to decide.
14. Mr X also wants ‘compensation’ for the impact of various tribunal and court action with the Council that Mr X implies should not have been necessary. Where that concerns the Council’s actions as landlord, the restriction in paragraph 3 prevents us investigating. Where that concerns how the Council conducted court action, the restriction in paragraph 4 prevents us investigating. Even if some points for which Mr X wants compensation do not directly concern such matters, it is properly for the courts, not the Ombudsman, to assess liability and compensation for any damages.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The central point is the alleged failure to obey the court order. Mr X can reasonably take court action on that. We cannot consider the Council’s actions related to its management of social housing or how it handled court action. Whether Mr X should receive his court costs and compensation are properly matters for the courts, not us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman