Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the conduct of her housing officer. This is mostly because it is unlikely that further investigation by us will lead to a different result and we cannot achieve the remaining result Miss X wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that during a telephone conversation her housing officer was rude, threatened that Miss X’s children could be taken into foster care and committed a privacy breach by disclosing information about another housing applicant to her. She says the housing officer’s actions have caused her distress.

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. We cannot investigate complaints about actions taken in respect of appointments, removals, discipline or other personnel matters (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome,
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Miss X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When Miss X complained to us, she wanted the Council to dismiss the officer complained of, allocate her a new officer and to compensate her.

Conduct of staff

8. The Council’s complaint responses shows that it:
• addressed Miss X’s concerns with her housing officer;
• apologised for any distress caused;
• allocated Miss X a new housing officer; and
• offered Miss X £100.
9. The Council has now done most of what Miss X wanted by changing the case officer and offering a payment. In the circumstances it is unlikely we would ask for significantly more than the £100 the Council offered for any upset the telephone conversation caused. I understand Miss X might have wanted the Council to take these steps sooner, but that is not a reason for us to take further action on the complaint. The main outstanding point Miss X wants is the officer’s dismissal. We could not ask the Council to do that. This is because the exclusion in paragraph 3 prevents us from investigating any disciplinary action the Council takes, or does not take, in relation to its staff.

Privacy

10. The Council accepts it incorrectly put another person’s information on Miss X’s file and told Miss X about some of that information. The Council apologised for this, rectified the filing error and reported the error to its governance team. It is unlikely any investigation by us would recommend significantly more. Also, as the breach did not involve any of Miss X’s own data, I do not consider this point caused Miss X significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating.
11. If Miss X still has privacy concerns, she can contact the Information Commissioner. That is the more appropriate body to consider complaints about data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman