Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council officers’ actions and the Councils decisions about her tenancy agreement. We are unlikely to find fault to warrant investigation. Further part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that she is being harassed by the Councils head of gypsy and traveller services.
2. She says the Council has not maintained her property.
3. She says the Council should allow her to have more dogs as part of her tenancy agreement

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X complained to the Council in November 2023 about officer behaviour, an enforcement notice, site maintenance, data protection concerns and alleged trespassing.
10. In August and September 2024, Miss X complained again to the Council. She complained about how plots are allocated, officer behaviour, the Council’s refusal to allow her to have more dogs on site and the cost of electricity.
11. The Council replied to Miss X saying plots are allocated by panel decision and waiting list, not by an individual officer.
12. The Council said it recognised confidence in the management was low and it was keen to remedy this. It said it had not seen any evidence showing officer behaviour to be unprofessional.
13. The Council said its policy and Miss X’s signed tenancy agreement restricted her to 2 dogs. It said if she needed more dogs to support her mental health, she would need to provide evidence from her GP, which it would consider.
14. The Council said it had considered a different supply of electricity for the site but it was not possible at the time. It said that electricity use and costs varied and provided advice on the support it could offer.

Back to top

Analysis

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about events in 2023. This part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Miss X could not have complained sooner.
16. The Council has investigated Miss X’s concerns and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation. It has explained it will consider her request for additional pets if she provides medical evidence to show she needs this to support her mental health. We cannot direct the Council to allow additional pets so further investigation would not achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault and cannot achieve the outcome she wants. Part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason the late complaint rule should not apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman