Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters affecting Mr X’s temporary accommodation. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action on the alleged damage to his health. There is not significant enough injustice separate from that point to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of various matters related to his homelessness temporary accommodation, including about a gas safety certificate, comments in a letter that Mr X took to be threatening to evict him, an allegation Mr X had changed the locks, and services in the communal area of the building. Mr X says the Council’s actions damaged his health and caused him lost sleep and worry about the possibility of eviction.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I have considered how Mr X says the Council’s alleged fault affected him.
7. Mr X says the Council’s actions worsened his physical and mental health. He wants compensation for this. This point is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more suitable for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court if he wants a decision on this point.
8. Mr X also says the Council’s alleged faults caused him to lose sleep and to worry about the possibility of eviction (though I have seen no evidence the Council actually took any formal steps to evict him). I understand this would have been difficult for Mr X. However, in all the circumstances, I do not consider this impact significant enough for it to be proportionate for the Ombudsman to devote time and public money to investigating whether the Council was at fault.
9. Mr X does not believe the Council investigated his complaint properly. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action on the personal injury point. Aside from that, there is not significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the complaint-handling alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman