Summary: A man complained that a charity unreasonably evicted his stepdaughter from its hostel last year and that the Council failed to take action regarding this matter. But we do not have grounds to investigate the complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council which caused the man an injustice to warrant our involvement, and we are unlikely to achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that a charity (‘the Charity’) unreasonably evicted his stepdaughter (‘Miss C’) last May during the first COVID-19 lockdown. Mr B also complained the Council had not taken sufficient action to deal with this matter. Mr B wanted the Charity and the Council to compensate Miss C for the resulting distress she suffered.

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 an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained,
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I also gave Mr B an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case.

What I found

4. Last year Miss C was living in hostel accommodation run by the Charity. But in May they asked her to leave. The Charity said this was because Miss C had symptoms of COVID-19 but was refusing to self-isolate. However Mr B disputed this claim. He also said the Charity threw Miss C onto the streets without her possessions at a time when the government was saying no-one should be evicted.
5. Mr B complained to the Charity but was unhappy with their response. He then complained to the Council as it commissions services from the Charity. The Council subsequently met with Mr B to discuss the case.
6. In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council concluded the Charity was entitled to evict Miss C, although there were issues with the way they dealt with the matter. The Council said lessons had been learned as a result.
7. The Council also recommended the Charity to offer Miss C some compensation as a goodwill gesture, but they refused to do this. However the Council said that as the Charity was a separate organisation it could not compel them to comply with its request.
8. The Council also acknowledged there were delays on its part in dealing with Mr B’s complaints and apologised to him for this. In addition it offered Miss C a token amount of compensation.

Analysis

9. Mr B remains unhappy about Miss C’s eviction and the Council’s response to his concerns about this issue. But I am not convinced that we have sufficient grounds to start an investigation in Mr B’s case.
10. In particular, we will normally not investigate a complaint unless there is evidence that the complainant has suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the authority in question. This means we will usually only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the authority.
11. I appreciate Mr B would have suffered some distress about what happened to Miss C as well as being put to some inconvenience because of the Council’s delays in dealing with his complaint. But I consider the main injustice claimed in this case relates to Miss C rather than Mr B, and I do not see that Mr B’s injustice is at a level to justify us carrying out an investigation of his own complaint.
12. I also consider an investigation would be unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking for his complaint. In particular Mr B wants Miss C to be compensated for what happened to her. But as Mr B has complained in his own right rather than on behalf of Miss C we would not be able to consider recommending a remedy in respect of her injustice.
13. In addition, our remit only extends to looking at whether there has been fault by the Council. But I consider the Council makes a valid point that it has no power to compel the Charity to offer a further remedy in relation to Miss C’s case. So I do not see that we would be in a position to recommend a remedy involving compensation from the Charity when the Council has no power to provide this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We do not have reason to start an investigation into Mr B’s complaint about a charity’s unreasonable eviction of his stepdaughter and the Council’s failure to take action concerning this matter. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council which has caused Mr B an injustice to warrant our further involvement and, in any case, we are very unlikely to achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman