Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her concerns about works to her property. This is because the matters complained about did not cause her sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement. We do not investigate complaints handling where we are not investigating the underlying matter.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s response to her complaint, which she said was late, contained inaccuracies and lies, and inappropriately criticised her own behaviour.
2. Ms X said the complaint response caused her distress and humiliation. She asked us to check the Council’s work and said the officer who sent the complaint response should not be allowed to work for the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council about work at her property in September 2023. She said:
• the Council had not told her about the work in advance;
• the work involved drilling, which made the property dusty, which caused Ms X’s daughter, who has allergies, to cough;
• when she tried to contact a Council officer about stopping the work, they did not respond or call her back, and there was no out of office message when her call went through to voicemail;
• Ms X stopped the work after two hours because she did not consider such work should be done in a property that was occupied; and
• she would move to another property as a result of these problems.
7. In its complaint response in October 2023, the Council:
• apologised for the delay in responding;
• said the contractor had told her about the work in advance and confirmed the work did not require Ms X to leave the property;
• apologised for the officer not being available, and said it was unusual for them not to use an out of office message if they were unavailable;
• said the contractor had reported Ms X did not allow them back into the property after they left to get parts, and her actions meant their tools were left outside to be damaged by rain;
• said it did not understand why Ms X was being obstructive since the work would benefit the property and her as tenant, but noted she had since moved to another property, and so it understood the matter was resolved.
8. Mrs X complained again and there was a further delay in the Council responding. It said it acknowledged the reasons she was unhappy with its previous response, but there was no reason to revise its previous decision.
9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about work to her property, which was stopped after two hours. There is insufficient injustice to her to warrant our involvement.
10. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaints handling where we are not looking at the substantive matter. Further, we cannot ask a council to discipline or sack a member or staff, so we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants.
11. For all these reasons, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to warrant our involvement and we would not usually investigate complaints handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman