Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns about the wrongful serving of notices. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains, on behalf of Mr Y, that the Council failed to deal with his concerns about the wrongful serving of notices within the promised timeframe. This has caused frustration and stress. He would like a response, an apology, explanation and compensation/goodwill gesture.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council sent its delayed final response to Mr X only very recently after he complained to us.
6. The Council partly upheld his complaint and apologised for the distress caused. It explained its officers were investigating a potential criminal offence under the Housing Act 2004. And that serving of notices on ‘relevant persons’ was part of its enforcement procedure to obtain paperwork to determine ownership, tenancies and management.

7. The Council said Mr Y had an option on receiving the notices to fill in the paperwork confirming he was not involved, so the notices would have been withdrawn. And that Mr Y had refused to do so.
8. Overall, the Council agreed the notices had been served wrongly and they should be regarded as withdrawn. It said lessons had been learnt to ensure this does not happen again.
9. We will not investigate. While there is no doubt the Council’s stage two response was delayed by almost three and a half months, there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from that delay. I note the Council did not act on the notices complained about, for example, no legal action ensued.
10. I should also point out that we do not usually investigate complaints solely about complaint procedures, if we are not looking at the substantive issue, as this is not a good use of public resources.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman