London Borough of Islington (20 004 625)

Category : Benefits and tax > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 Oct 2020

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

  1. 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.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint and the Council’s responses to him.
  2. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X, who had an opportunity to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

  1. 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.
  2. Mr X complained to the Council, which apologised and said it would stop any further contact with Mrs Y.
  3. However, the enforcement agents sent another letter to Mrs Y’s home, addressed to ‘the occupier’. This further letter caused Mrs Y more distress.
  4. Mr X complained again to the Council, which apologised again and investigated.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the offer of £200 did not adequately reflect the distress caused to Mrs Y.

Analysis

  1. The Council accepted its enforcement agents were at fault in contacting Mrs Y and that is caused her an injustice.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. 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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings