Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to water quality testing at a rented property. We 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 X, says the Council has not adequately responded to questions she raised about its testing of water quality at her father’s rented property. She says due to the charges made to the landlord for the test, she and her father experienced bullying from him such that she felt compelled to pay him money to minimise the bullying.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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 X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X’s elderly father rents a property from a person with whom in the past Ms X had had a troubled relationship.
5. In 2019, concerned about the quality of water at the property and that at times water was not coming from the mains, Ms X contacted the Council. The Council visited the property, carried out water testing and, in accordance with normal procedures, invoiced the property owner for the testing charges.
6. Ms X says due to the owner’s response to the charge, and his behaviour towards her and her father, she felt obliged to pay him money to appease him.
7. In 2019, and at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure in 2020, Ms X complained to it about its handling of matters. She complained the Council had not taken sufficient account of her troubled relationship with the owner; that proper consent to enter the property to carry out the testing had not been sought; that the officer carrying out the testing had arrived late and that she had not been informed the landlord would be charged for the testing. She asked the Council to comment on this matter which she said had led to the owner criticising her and her father and to behaviour such that she felt she had to pay him money to minimise his bullying.
8. The Council provided Ms X with a copy of its records which recorded its communication with her. It explained that officers would not enter without consent and that she had been advised that she/her father would not be liable for the charging costs because they were not the owner. It apologised if she had been bullied because of the case and explained it had acted on its statutory duty to ensure the water supply was fit for purpose. Ms X was advised to contact the police if the owner was harassing her.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to us and, while she could not say what outcome she wanted for her complaint, she wanted the Council to acknowledge it had done wrong and tell her the amount of the invoice.
10. In responding to an enquiry I made about the complaint, the Council realised it had overlooked Ms X’s request for a copy of the invoice for the testing and sent this to her.

Assessment

11. The Council adequately responded to the concerns Ms X raised about the testing of water quality at her father’s home. It has now also provided her with the copy of the invoice she had requested. I see no grounds which warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman and I do not consider an investigation would serve any useful purpose.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We 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