Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The law prevents us investigating whether a Council contractor filmed Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application. Mr X can ask the Council to review his application if he believes the application should have higher priority.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a Council contractor filmed him in his home without permission and the Council has refused to move him to another property. He says he has suffered distress, his mental health has worsened and he wants to move home as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Allegation that a contractor filmed Mr X

7. Mr X is a Council social housing tenant. He complains a contractor doing some work in his home on the Council’s behalf filmed him without his consent. The Council denies this happened; it says a representative inaccurately told Mr X a contractor had filmed him.
8. This part of the complaint relates to the Council’s management of its social housing in its role as a social housing provider. Therefore the law prevents us investigating this, as paragraph 2 explained.

Mr X’s wish to move home

9. Mr X wants to move due to the incident. His complaint to us said the Council has refused to move him. The evidence I have seen does not support that. The Council says Mr X applied for rehousing and it has put the application on the housing register in Band C. So the Council has not refused to move Mr X. The Council is not obliged to rehouse social housing applicants immediately, nor is that usually possible. Placing the application on the register in the band the Council considers correct is not fault.
10. If Mr X believes the Council has not given his application high enough priority, he can ask the Council for more priority, giving reasons. The Council will then assess whether to increase his priority and tell Mr X its decision. Mr X would have the right to ask the Council to review such a decision. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complete this procedure before the Ombudsman will consider whether the Council has properly reached its decisions about how much priority to give the application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The law prevents us investigating the point about the alleged filming. The Council has not refused Mr X’s request to move. If Mr X wants his rehousing application to have more priority, he can reasonably ask the Council for this, then use his review right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman