Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s treatment of her and its failure to investigate the matters of which she complains. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says Council staff are verbally abusive to her but that this has not been investigated by the Council. She also says the Council unjustifiably threatened her with eviction and berated her at a tenants meeting and that its treatment of her is having a major impact on her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B has long-running concerns about how the Council deals with her. In her most recent complaint she says the Council threatened her with eviction; Council staff publicly berated her at a tenants meeting; staff are continually abusive and act in a discriminatory manner towards her and that her reports of these incidents are ignored and not investigated. She also says her comments on what is said about her in her file have not been included on the file.
5. The Council sent her a letter which responded to the concerns she raised. It explained she had not been threatened with eviction and that she had been contacted about access for tenant management issues. It also explained that staff at the tenants meeting had asked her to refrain from raising the same matters she always raised at such meetings and that other attendees at the meeting confirmed what had happened.
6. With regard to Ms B’s claims of staff misconduct, the Council asked her to provide specific details so it could investigate her allegations. It also explained that it could not change file notes as they were relevant at the time but that all her communication is recorded and placed on file so there is a record of what she says.

Assessment

7. The Council has responded appropriately to Ms B’s most recent complaint. It has explained the action it took about the tenant management issue and what happened at the tenants meeting where other attendees supported what it said.
8. Ms B says the Council is using our consideration of earlier complaints she has made to avoid addressing the discriminatory misconduct of staff. However, the Council has properly invited her to provide specific details in relation to her allegations of staff misconduct. Without this further detail the Council cannot investigate what she says.
9. While I understand Ms B may continue to feel frustrated, I have seen no grounds which suggest an investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve any useful purpose.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman