London Borough of Islington (20 004 625)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s enforcement agents wrongly contacted his mother about a debt she did not owe. This is because we are satisfied with the Council’s proposed actions and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council’s enforcement agents wrongly contacted his mother about a debt she did not owe. He says the agents caused his mother significant distress and he is not satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy.
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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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 a council’s actions or proposed actions or if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint and the Council’s responses to him.
- I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X, who had an opportunity to comment on it.
What I found
Background
- Mr X’s mother, Mrs Y, does not live in the Council’s area. The Council’s enforcement agents wrote to Mrs Y about an outstanding debt. This caused Mrs Y significant distress because she did not owe anything.
- Mr X complained to the Council, which apologised and said it would stop any further contact with Mrs Y.
- However, the enforcement agents sent another letter to Mrs Y’s home, addressed to ‘the occupier’. This further letter caused Mrs Y more distress.
- Mr X complained again to the Council, which apologised again and investigated.
- The Council found its enforcement agents had failed to follow the correct tracing procedures and should not have linked Mrs Y to the outstanding debt. The Council offered to apologise to Mrs Y for the failings and Mr X asked that he was sent the letter first, so he could check the tone was suitable for his mother. Mr X says the Council sent the letter to his mother without checking with him first.
- In its final response, the Council accepted its enforcement agents had not acted properly and had caused Mrs Y significant distress. To remedy the injustice, the Council:
- apologised to Mrs Y;
- offered to pay £200 to Mrs X in recognition of the distress it caused and Mr X’s time and trouble in making the complaint; and
- agreed its enforcement agents will be given suitable training.
- Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the offer of £200 did not adequately reflect the distress caused to Mrs Y.
Analysis
- The Council accepted its enforcement agents were at fault in contacting Mrs Y and that is caused her an injustice.
- The Ombudsman provides a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions.
- I am mindful of the obvious distress the Council’s actions caused to Mrs Y. However, I am satisfied that the Council’s apology and the offer of £200 is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs Y.
- I am also satisfied that the Council has asked its enforcement agents to carry out suitable training. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve a significantly different outcome.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are satisfied with the Council’s proposed actions and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman