Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not fully completed a review of a housing decision, as agreed in a previous Ombudsman investigation. The Council is at fault because it delayed completing the review. The Council has agreed to complete the review. It should also apologise and pay Mr X £400 in respect of avoidable distress and time and trouble.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not fully completed a review of a housing decision, as agreed in a previous Ombudsman investigation.
2. Mr X says he has suffered injustice as a result of the original decision, as well as avoidable distress because of the delay in completing the previously agreed remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened?

7. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
8. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about how the Council had dealt with his housing situation.
9. The Council agreed a number of recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s final decision statement, including, “The Council should complete a review of the decision to end its duty to secure accommodation for Mr X”.

Analysis

10. The Council did not complete the recommendation in paragraph 9 within the agreed time. This is fault by the Council. Mr X has suffered further avoidable distress due to the delay and had to complain to the Ombudsman again.
11. During my investigation the Council has proposed that:
• It issues a “minded to” letter in respect of the decision to end the S189 duty in respect of Mr X’s case. This will provide Mr X with the Council’s findings to this point and affords him an opportunity to comment specifically on relevant points relating to the period in question. The Council proposes a period of ten working days for Mr X to respond to the ‘minded to’ letter.
• Following this, it will issue a final review decision within fourteen working days.
12. Subject to Mr X requesting additional time to respond to the ‘minded to’ letter, I agree this is an appropriate partial remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

13. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the further delay; and
• Issue a ‘minded to’ letter to Mr X, and subsequently a final review decision in accordance with the timescales in paragraph 11 above, unless Mr X requests additional time to respond; and
• Pay Mr X £400 in respect of avoidable distress and time and trouble.
14. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman