Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to protect residents of his development from the risk of catching COVID-19. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to act to protect residents of his development from possible COVID-19 infection between April and August 2020.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. 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 believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s correspondence with the Council, shared my draft decision with him and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X lives in a private development of flats in the Council’s area.
6. In April 2020, during the first national lockdown to tackle COVID-19, the development’s management company appointed contractors to carry out redecoration to certain communal areas. Mr X was concerned about the risk of transmission resulting from the work so he contacted the Council’s environmental protection team to see if they could help. An officer responded to Mr X and explained that because the work had stopped there was nothing they could do. They invited Mr X to contact them again if the contractors returned.
7. Several months later, after the lockdown had ended, the contractors returned to continue the redecoration. Two days later, Mr X contacted the Council again. He sent an email and made several telephone calls to the Council’s environmental protection team but did not hear back until two days later. He is unhappy the Council did not deal with the issue immediately and that by the time it agreed to look into the matter, the contractors had finished their work and left.
8. While Mr X is unhappy with the length of time it took the Council to deal with the issue it is unlikely we would say this was fault. The Council could not achieve anything more for Mr X in April 2020 after the contractors had left and it agreed to look into the matter promptly when they returned and Mr X contacted it again.
9. Two days is not an unreasonable length of time for the Council to deal with the report, given the circumstances and ongoing demand on its environmental protection team. It has also explained it considered the presence of physical barriers and adherence to Government guidelines amounted to sufficient protection for residents that it did not require more urgent attention. There is no suggestion Mr X caught COVID-19 as a direct result of the contractor’s work in the building and with this in mind, his concern about the increased risk, which has now passed, is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
10. Mr X is also concerned about the management company’s approach to cleaning communal areas in the development. But the Council has considered this issue and does not consider it feasible to clean surfaces every time someone accesses these areas. It accepts increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces is adequate and confirms it is satisfied with the company’s COVID-19 risk assessment for general work within the development. Its view on these issues is a matter of professional judgement and without evidence of fault in the way it was reached it is not for us to say it is wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman