Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council intentionally maintaining his state of homelessness by manipulating financial records. This is because the issues he raises are about matters that are closely linked to court proceedings, and we have no discretion to investigate them.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council fabricated debts to refuse him housing. He believes the Council acted deliberately and fraudulently, amounting to malfeasance (wrongdoing). He seeks an independent review, an apology, financial compensation for the injustice he says he has suffered, and service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says after his 2014 eviction, the Council stored his belongings, including important documents, and later destroyed them. He says the Council created or inflated debts for housing and storing his property, did not give him invoices, hid information, and used debt collectors when it was not appropriate. He says these actions caused him significant personal harm.
7. He also says the Council ignored medical evidence, mishandled his homelessness applications, and relied on disputed debts to prevent him from accessing the housing register for more than a decade.
8. Mr X accuses the Council of misconduct, fraud, abuse of power, hiding information through heavy redaction, and acting deliberately to keep him homeless and obstruct his ability to challenge them.
9. In 2019, Mr X issued legal proceedings against the Council, claiming misfeasance (improper conduct) in public office. His claim mainly concerned the destruction of his belongings, the handling of his property after the 2014 eviction, and the long-term impact of the Council’s actions. The Council responded by making a counterclaim against Mr X.
10. In 2021, the court struck out Mr X’s misfeasance claim. However, Mr X continues to challenge the Council’s counterclaim and its related conduct.
11. Because the law prevents us from becoming involved in matters that are or have been considered by the courts, we cannot investigate this complaint. The concerns Mr X raises are directly connected to court proceedings and therefore fall outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint this is because the issues he raises are about matters that are closely linked to court proceedings, and we have no discretion to investigate them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman