Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is insufficient evidence of outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X says he has been badly affected by how his complaint about a meeting held to discuss his housing was dealt with.
2. Mr X would like an investigation, a reinstatement of his housing, an apology, compensation and a policy review.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s response. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

7. Mr X has another complaint (24017841) concerning the merits of his housing application. So I will not duplicate that case by looking at housing application related issues in this case. I will only be looking at the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint in relation to the conduct of a meeting held in November 2024 with two Council officers.
8. Mr X questions the professionalism of the officers who attended the meeting and also the officer who investigated his complaint. Mr X says false accusations were made against him.
9. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint about the ‘difficult’ meeting runs to over 4 pages with 31 paragraphs. It finds the officer complained of used phrases that could be seen as rude such as ‘childish’ to describe Mr X’s behaviour and also when the officer said to Mr X ‘listen to me’.
10. However, the response also refers to Mr X referring to a third party in a ‘disrespectful and degrading’ manner continuously despite the officer’s attempts to discuss Mr X’s housing issues with him. And that another officer witnessed Mr X’s conduct as did security staff who intervened apparently due to Mr X’s behaviour. Overall, the Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
11. We will not investigate. We are unlikely to find evidence of a significant injustice arising to Mr X. This is because the Council’s complaint response is comprehensive, relies on evidence provided by other officers including security officers and it accords with complaint handling guidelines.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of an outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman