Summary: There is no fault in how the Council considered the complainant’s specific circumstances, when deciding not to make an exception to its river moorings policy. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Ms W, says the Council has not properly considered whether her circumstances mean it should make an exception to its river moorings policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed the Council’s correspondence with Ms W, its detailed consideration of her circumstances, and its river moorings policy.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms W lives on a narrowboat. The boat is moored on a river in the Council’s area, in a location where the Council requires boat owners to have a mooring licence. There is a waiting list for licences; and when one becomes available, the Council’s policy is to allocate it to the applicant who has been waiting the longest.
7. Ms W does not have a mooring licence. She is on the waiting list, but it is likely to be several years before she can obtain a licence.
8. In 2018, Ms W complained to the Ombudsman the Council was threatening to evict her. She said the Council had not taken into account her specific circumstances – including her ethnic background, disabilities and that her children lived with her. The Ombudsman found fault because the Council had not considered whether it was appropriate to make an exception to its policy under Ms W’s specific circumstances. In March 2019, the Council agreed to undertake a review.
9. In June 2019, the Council wrote to Ms W. It gave a detailed consideration of each of the circumstances she had raised, and said it did not consider they gave grounds to warrant a departure from its policy.
10. Ms W then raised a further complaint with the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

11. Ms W raised a number of specific personal circumstances, which the Council considered in response to the Ombudsman’s original decision.
12. Ms W’s position was generally reliant on her human rights, and those of her family, to education, to a right to a private life, the right to access support for mental health conditions and disabilities, and the right to housing. She claimed the Council was discriminating against her because of her Roma ethnicity by forcing her to move from a boat into a house.
13. The Council’s response is very detailed and explains why, in each case, it did not accept this warranted an exception to its mooring policy. It said taking enforcement action against her would not prevent her family from receiving education or support, and pointed out it had no statutory duty to provide her with a place to moor her boat and so its decision was not discriminatory.
14. I noted, and asked the Council to elaborate, on one point in its consideration. This related to Ms W’s claim to be providing care for a neighbouring boat-owner. In its response, the Council said the neighbour was not part of Ms W’s household, and for reasons of confidentiality could not discuss his case with her.
15. Ms W told the Ombudsman she had the neighbour’s authorisation to discuss his case, and that the Council was aware of this. She provided a copy of a letter dated July 2018 from the local NHS mental health team, supporting her statement to be providing essential care to the neighbour.
16. I provided the Council with a copy of this letter and asked it to comment. In response, it said it had not previously seen this letter. It had now spoken to the NHS mental health team, which confirmed the person in whose name the letter had been written was no longer employed there. The team also confirmed it had no records of either Ms W or the neighbour under the addresses quoted in the letter, nor did it have a copy of the letter in its records. The Council’s view was that this letter could not be relied upon as evidence.
17. The Council said, regardless of this, its position was that the neighbour did not form part of Ms W’s household, and did not consider his circumstances to be relevant to its decision about her situation. The Council confirmed it had received a supporting letter from the neighbour in December 2018, and had considered this in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty when it made its original decision in June 2019.
18. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the Council’s adherence to law, procedure and good administrative practice. It is not, however, for the Ombudsman to decide what the Council’s policies should be; nor can he direct the Council to depart from its policy. That a person may disagree with the Council’s policy, or its implementation of it, does not give the Ombudsman grounds to uphold a complaint.
19. I am entirely satisfied with the Council’s consideration of Ms W’s personal circumstances. It has considered each in detail, and provided cogent reasons why it will not make an exception to its policy. These are decisions the Council is entitled to make, and I have no grounds to criticise them.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman