Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council completing an unannounced home visit because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council completing an unannounced home visit. He says the Council’s actions led to him receiving verbal and physical abuse from others. Mr Y also complains about the conduct of individual Council officers.
2. Mr Y further complains that the Council failed to comply with a Subject Access Request, and he says it mishandled his data. He also complains about the Council’s complaint handling, and delays in its responses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• 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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information and data protection. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about these matters, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr Y and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y complained to the Council about it completing an unannounced home visit. The Council says it completed this in response to reports it received. Mr Y says he does not give consent for the Council to complete home visits. However, the Council has a right to do this in line with its various roles and responsibilities providing it acts within its duties and powers. I understand that several different Council departments were involved, all of which provided an explanation for completing the home visit. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
9. Mr Y further complained about the conduct of individual officers. He says they acted unprofessionally, and at times, with malice. He says officers breached Council policies. The Council investigated this, and I am satisfied with the response it provided. We could add nothing further to the Council’s response, therefore will not investigate this part of the complaint. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. We do not consider individual professional competence.
10. Mr Y says the Council’s visit led to a break-in at his property and resulted in him receiving verbal and physical abuse from others. Mr Y says the home visit fuelled harmful gossip among his local community. While I recognise the distressing experiences Mr Y has described, the Council has explained there is no evidence to suggest these are linked to its home visit. I am satisfied the Council properly investigated this element of Mr Y’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
11. I understand Mr Y has been experiencing difficulties with his neighbour. Mr Y says his neighbour has made vexatious complaints about him. Mr Y has also raised concerns about his neighbour to the Council. The Council has a duty to properly consider all reports and complaints it receives, regardless of if an individual believes they fuelled with ill intent. Allegations of crime, such as assault and harassment should be reported to, and investigated by, the police.
12. Mr Y also says the Council breached data protection legislation. He says it failed to comply with a Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information and data protection and is better placed to consider this part of the complaint; therefore we will not investigate it.
13. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.
14. I acknowledge there were significant delays in the Council’s response to Mr Y. The Council also accepted the delays were unacceptable, and to its credit it did offer Mr Y a £300 payment in acknowledgement of his time and trouble in pursuing his complaints.
15. I understand Mr Y is seeking compensation from the Council. We do not recommend that Councils pay compensation. Sometimes we recommend that Councils pay a symbolic payment to remedy injustice caused by fault. However, where there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, we do not consider remedies.
16. Mr Y says the Council’s actions were unlawful. We make findings of fault, not lawfulness. Given Mr Y’s main complaint is centred around the lawfulness of the Council’s actions, he could have considered Juridical Review; and it is reasonable to have expected him to do so.
17. Mr Y says the Council has breached the Equality Act and discriminated against him. He says it failed to consider his race and sexuality. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. I have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest the Council has discriminated against Mr Y or treated him differently because of his race or sexuality.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. We could add nothing further to warrant our involvement for part of the complaint, and part of the complaint is best placed to be considered by another body.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman