Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he received inadequate support from the Council with his housing issues and it declined his request for a new housing officer to deal with his case. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that he received inadequate support from the Council with his housing issues and it declined his request for a new housing officer to deal with his case. Mr B told us this caused him significant distress, it had a negative impact on his mental health and he had to move out of the borough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B told us he was being physically attacked by neighbours and at risk of becoming homeless. He said he felt the support he received from his housing officer, officer Z, was inadequate and his relationship with officer Z deteriorated after he refused to accept the tenancy of a flat in August 2019. Mr B said he felt officer Z had been hostile and threatening towards him.
5. When it responded to his complaint the Council said it had interviewed officer Z. The Council said officer Z disagreed his relationship with Mr B had broken down and had said there had been regular contact between both of them. The Council’s response gave some details of the enquiries officer Z had made to the police, Mr B’s landlord, the environmental health service and the Council’s medical advisor. The Council said officer Z had also made the referral to a housing association which led to the offer of the flat in August 2019. The Council’s view was officer Z had made sufficient enquiries to be able to issue a decision on Mr B’s application. It did not feel it should allocate a new housing officer to the case.
6. There is a difference of opinion between Mr B and officer Z about whether the relationship had broken down. That is not something on which we could reach a view several months later. It was for the Council to decide if there were good enough reasons to allocate a new housing officer to the case. Officer Z has made the enquiries we would have expected him to make. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in this case.
7. The end result of Mr B’s request for assistance was the Council’s decision on whether it owed him the main housing duty. If Mr B disagreed with the Council’s decision on his application because of the way officer Z had dealt with his case, it was reasonable to expect him to use the review and appeal rights the law provides.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman