Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of officers acting on behalf of the Council because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about “hostile and demeaning” behaviour by an officer when he approached the Council’s homelessness service on two occasions in September 2024. He said this caused him psychological and emotional harm.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X made a homelessness application, and the Council accepted a main housing duty in March 2024. Also in March 2024, there was an incident at the offices of Organisation A (a third-party organisation providing homelessness services on behalf of the Council), which led to the Council writing to him to say he could no longer attend Organisation A’s offices or access Organisation A’s services. The Council explained this would not affect his homelessness application and that he could still contact officers by telephone or email.
6. In September and October 2024, Mr X tried to access Organisation A’s offices. Organisation A’s complaint response says that on the first occasion the police were called to remove him and on the second he was spoken to outside the building.
7. In his complaint, Mr X referred to a third visit, where he accessed the building and was waiting in reception when an officer saw him and shouted at him. The officer concerned no longer works for Organisation A. However, in its complaint response, Organisation A said that on all the occasions Mr X said the officer had been rude there were multiple witnesses present to observe the officer’s behaviour and communication. Organisation A also viewed CCTV footage during the early part of the complaints process.
8. Mr X said he complained to the Council three times in October 2024 but its only response said the matter had been passed to Organisation A to respond. He said Organisation A was providing services on behalf of the Council, so it should have carried out its own investigation and responded to him.

My assessment

9. The Council remains responsible for acts and omissions by third party organisations delivering services on its behalf.
10. There is no dispute that Mr X had been told he could not access Organisation A’s offices. In those circumstances, it was not fault for Organisation A to see him outside the building, nor to call the police to remove him if he refused to leave. Whilst there is a conflict of evidence in relation to an individual officer’s conduct, further investigation by us would not be able to resolve this, as it is Mr X’s word against that of Organisation A. Further investigation is therefore unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
11. Given the complaint related to the provision of statutory homelessness services, I consider the Council should have accepted a complaint the October 2024 and responded to Mr X, even if it asked Organisation A to make enquiries about what had happened and report back to it. That said, I have seen records to show the Council not only referred the matter to Organisation A but did check that a response was issued and satisfied itself that no further action was needed.
12. Further, the records show Organisation A responded appropriately at all three stages of its own complaints process. On that basis, I do not consider Mr X suffered a sufficient injustice due to the lack of a formal complaint response. In any case, we would not usually investigate complaints handling unless we are also investigating the underlying complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman