Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council officer’s conduct whilst carrying out a housing assessment interview with Ms X. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy and an investigation would not provide Ms X with a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that when she applied for housing relief, the Council employee who conducted her assessment made inappropriate and unprofessional comments.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. After Ms X became threatened with homelessness, she applied to the Council for housing relief. During an assessment interview to determine whether Ms X was eligible for housing assistance, the Council employee conducting the interview made a series of inappropriate and unprofessional comments which made Ms X uncomfortable and caused her to question the impartiality of the assessment.
6. Ms X complained to the Council regarding the incident and the Council investigated what had happened. The Council conceded the employee’s conduct was unprofessional and confirmed that the employee would be offered refresher training around codes of conduct at work. The Council provided Ms X with a £100 financial award and assured her it had reviewed her housing application and her application was not hindered by the employee’s poor conduct. The Council went on to accept its housing duty towards Ms X.
7. Ms X remains unhappy with the situation and requests that the Council house her under its Ukrainian refugee scheme. The evidence shows the Council reviewed Ms X’s housing application to ensure she had not been disadvantaged by the Council employee’s conduct and there is no evidence she was negatively affected by this incident or that the Council followed the incorrect process in how it responded to her housing application. The Council has confirmed that the scheme is still being developed, and it will contact Ms X if she is suitable for it. These are satisfactory actions for the Council to take. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome for Ms X as the Council has already put forward a suitable remedy for the injustice Ms X experienced.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation would not provide Ms X with a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman