Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to appropriately deal with his reports of anti-social behaviour, disrepair in his property block, and his request to be rehoused. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to appropriately deal with his reports of anti-social behaviour and of disrepair in his property block. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his application to be rehoused.

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 an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is a tenant of the Council. Any complaints about disrepair to his property block will be dealt with by the Council under its responsibilities as a social landlord. Therefore, Mr X’s complaints about how the Council dealt with his reports of disrepair need to be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.
7. Regarding Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour, the Council explained the action it had taken. For one neighbour, the Council advised it had served a notice of seeking possession on the tenant in 2022. However, due to an improvement in behaviour, the Court did not grant the Council possession. The Council also confirmed it had served a community protection notice on the tenant in July 2023, and later issued a warning in August 2023 when there was evidence the tenant had breached the notice. The Council said that no complaints about the tenant received since.
8. For the other neighbour, the Council confirmed it had served a breach of tenancy in June 2023. The Council noted that since then, an improvement had been noted.
9. An investigation is therefore not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. This is because the Council has taken formal action against the neighbours Mr X reported, which resulted in an improvement in the behaviour of the neighbours. I note it is likely Mr X considers the Council has not gone far enough to tackle the anti-social behaviour as he would like the neighbours to be evicted. However, the Council has shown consideration of the matter and has provided a clear rationale for the action taken. Therefore, it is unlikely we could find fault with the decisions made.
10. Finally, Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request to be rehoused. The Council confirmed that Mr X is currently on its housing register, with Band 4 priority. The Council operates a choice based letting system, so it is for Mr X to bid on properties he considers to be suitable for him.
11. The Council completed a medical assessment in February 2024, which found Mr X had a moderate medical need and recommended low-rise property blocks for Mr X.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council appropriately considered Mr X’s medical issues by completing a medical assessment. This assessment resulted in a recommendation for low rise property blocks. If Mr X disagreed with the medical assessment recommendations, it was reasonable for him to have appealed.
13. The Council also confirmed it offered a ground floor property to Mr X in March 2023. However, Mr X declined it as he didn’t consider it to be suitable. Mr X continues to be able to bid for properties, and it is open to him to continue to bid for properties he considers to be suitable.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman