Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about communication with the Council. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about communication with the Council and about the Council restricting his access to communicate with it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complains an officer made offensive remarks about him during a meeting. The Council investigated and found no evidence. It apologised that Mr X felt disrespected.
6. Mr X complains the Council described his behaviour as racist and misogynistic after two housing officers met with him in his home. The Council investigated and said that it had spoken with both staff members during its investigation. It wrote to Mr X and, in line with its policy, restricted his contact with the Council.
7. Mr X complains about the restrictions. He says the single point of contact was biased. The Council says it acted in line with its policy. Mr X says he could not contact the Council by telephone when the restrictions ended. During our investigation, the Council explained that it had mistakenly left the telephone block in place. It wrote to Mr X to apologise and took steps to prevent this happening again.
8. Mr X complains the Council told him his tenancy was at risk. He says this was because he sent an email saying his case would follow a senior staff member after they left. The Council’s action is in line with the Council’s policy.
9. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council followed its process after the meeting at Mr X’s home, apart from its failure to lift the block on telephone contact. The Council has apologised and taken steps to prevent this happening again. Mr X was able to contact the Council by email during this time. While this was frustrating for Mr X, I do not feel this has caused injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice caused by the Council’s actions is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman