Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s communication. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will also not investigate his complaint about the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty. It is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the county court if he disagrees with this decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council’s housing service communicated with him. He said he asked the Council to only contact him through email, however, it telephoned him and asked him personal information about him and his wider family. He said that information was used against him, after the Council offered him a property that was not suitable for his needs.
2. Mr X wants the Council to complete training with staff around communication preferences. He also wants it to reinstate its duty to provide him and his family a suitably adapted property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council telephoned him despite him requesting email communication. Firstly, the Council has already apologised for this and reminded staff to communicate in line with customers preferences. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Additionally, the Council’s complaint response confirmed that Mr X frequently telephoned it to discuss his housing. Therefore, there is nothing to indicate its actions have caused a significant injustice.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council sought personal information about him during these calls. The Council needed this information to inform its assessment of Mr X’s housing needs and the suitability of any property it offered. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
10. Mr X complained the Council was intimidating during these calls. He said it attempted to force him to accept a property that he thought was unsuitable. The Council’s complaint response confirmed it was trying to explain to Mr X, that if he did not accept a property that it considered suitable for his needs, then it was likely it would end the main housing duty. That is not evidence of intimidation, but that the Council was trying to explain its housing duty to Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
11. The Council has since ended the main housing duty after Mr X refused the property. Mr X has exercised his right to review. That confirmed the Council considered the property suitable. If Mr X disagrees with that decision, and believes the Council should reinstate its housing duty, it is reasonable for him to appeal to the county court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, and it is reasonable for him to appeal the Council’s housing decision to the county court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman