Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of a council officer. He says the officer discriminated against him based on his race. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different outcomes. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X was contacted by an officer regarding a property he managed. Mr X complains about the actions of the officer. He says the officer discriminated against him based on his race.

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, or
• 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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was contacted by the Council’s officer on two occasions regarding a property he managed. In one email, the officer told him the Council had received reports of the scaffolding at the property being unsafe. The officer asked Mr X to check on the scaffolding and to remove it if it was not necessary.
6. In the other email, the officer told Mr X a tenant had contacted the Council about disrepair at the property. The Council told Mr X formal action would be taken and that she would be in contact again once they had inspected the property.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council accepted the officer’s wording in the email had been clumsy and that the officer should have explained what was meant by formal action.
8. The Council explained that in this case, it was to serve a formal notice of entry to inform Mr X of their inspection under the Housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS). The Council further explained that any action to be taken after would be dependent on what the inspection found and would have been discussed with Mr X. The Council confirmed the officer had acted in accordance with its enforcement policy but apologised for any distress caused.
9. The Council said it was satisfied with the officer’s actions in the first email as it was correct for her to have asked Mr X to inspect the scaffolding to ensure it was safe due to the report received about a potentially dangerous situation.
10. An investigation is not justified as it would not achieve anything further. The Council has acknowledged the officer could have worded the email properly and has since provided clarity to Mr X what action was taken and under what policy the action was taken under. An investigation would not lead to any further recommendations.
11. Further, there is insufficient evidence to support Mr X’s statement the officer discriminated against him because of his race. This is because the action taken by the officer was in line with the law and the Council’s enforcement policy. Therefore, Mr X was not treated differently because of his race.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different outcomes. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman