Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a property management company as requested by Mr X. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to respond to his request that it take enforcement action against a company engaged in residential leasehold property management work without belonging to an approved redress scheme as required by law.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not 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, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In responding to my initial enquiries about this matter, the Council has acknowledged that the company in question, Company A, was not registered for residential leasehold property management work. It says Mr X could seek redress through the redress scheme against Company B which is linked to Company A and which is a member of the scheme.
6. The Council did investigate Mr X’s concerns and in deciding not to take enforcement action against Company A it says it took into account that when property management duties were transferred to Company B in 2018 Mr X had been properly informed of this. The decision not to take enforcement action was reviewed against the Council’s enforcement policy by a senior manager and Mr X was informed of this.
7. While Mr X may not agree with the decision taken by the Council, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. I have seen no evidence to suggest fault by the Council affected its decision.
8. Mr X was advised how to progress his complaint with the relevant redress scheme and it is open to him to follow the advice given.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman