Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s housing support worker because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says his housing support officer is insensitive to his family’s cultural and religious needs. He wants the Council to allocate a different worker, apologise and pay compensation.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives in temporary accommodation and has a tenancy support worker. Mr X complains of cultural and religious insensitivities including an occasion when the officer entered Mr X’s home without consent and saw Mr X’s wife unveiled. Mr X wants the Council to give him a new support worker and dismiss the first officer. Mr X also wants an apology and compensation.
6. I have read the complaint correspondence which shows the Council carried out a detailed investigation into Mr X’s complaints. Some of the findings include that the officer carried out his duties appropriately and the Council had declined earlier requests for a different officer. The Council explained the officer opened the door and announced his presence (whilst accompanied by a female officer) because Mr X had not been engaging with the support, had refused access for inspections, and had left furniture and belongings in the garden which led the officer to think Mr X might have abandoned the property. The Council established that, on opening the door, Mrs X shouted from another room, and the officers stayed on the step until she was able to speak to them. The Council noted it is a condition of the tenancy that Mr X must allow entry for inspections and maintain furniture the Council had provided as part of the tenancy. The Council suggested that some of the problems might have been avoided if Mr X had engaged with the support officer.
7. As part of the investigation the Council spoke to the officers and managers, reviewed correspondence, and considered the records. The Council explained the conditions of the tenancy and, whilst, not upholding the complaint, gave the family a female support worker. Mr X objects to the new worker because she had accompanied the first officer on visits.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council carried out a detailed investigation and found there was no evidence to support Mr X’s allegations. It explained why the officer opened the door and explained why he withdrew until Mrs X was able to speak to them. The Council noted all the actions the officer had taken as he tried to support the family. The Council offered a different officer even though it had not identified any wrong-doing by the first officer. I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied with the new officer but, as the Council did not find that anyone had done anything wrong, there is no reason to comment on the allocation of the second worker. We have no power to intervene in the way a council allocates staff and we cannot ask a council to dismiss anyone.
9. I did not witness what happened when the officer made the visit so I cannot comment further on what happened. But, I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s complaint. I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the outcome but, as I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, there is no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman