Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s support of her housing matters. The Council accepted some fault, for which it has apologised, and further investigation is not likely to lead to a different outcome. In respect to two outstanding issues, there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about a lack of support from the Council’s floating support officer with her housing matters and the officer’s failure to provide the records she asked for, following the final session with them in February 2025. Ms X also complained about the Council’s poor complaints handling.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X said she was supported by Officer 1, a floating support officer, from September 2024, in relation to her housing matters. Ms X said there was an initial delay in Officer 1 contacting her landlord, caused by Officer 1 sending Ms X documents to consider in small print so Ms X had to wait for someone to assist her reading them before she could respond.
6. Ms X also complained that in the final session with Officer 1, in February 2025, she understood Officer 1 had sent two emails on her behalf during the session and would send two further emails immediately afterwards. Ms X said she asked for evidence the emails had been sent, but there was a delay in Officer 1 responding, and they only sent information about one of the emails. Ms X said a third party to whom another email was being sent did not receive it and the Council’s information governance team could not find a record of any emails being sent on the relevant day. Ms X’s support was transferred to a third-party organisation in mid-March 2025.
7. Ms X also complained the Council did not carry out a proper investigation at stage 1 of the complaints process, sent the stage 1 response in small print despite her request for large print, and did not spend enough time discussing the complaint with her by telephone to ensure it understood her concerns.
8. In its complaint response, the Council:
• Accepted a delay by Officer 1 in responding to Ms X’s requests for records to confirm the emails they sent;
• Acknowledged it should have identified the request as a Subject Access Request and directed it to the relevant team;
• Accepted it should have used large print when responding to the complaint at stage 1 and that its complaints handling had fallen below its usual standards in various respects.
9. The Council apologised for the above failings and said the learning from the complaint had been used to update the training to call centre staff.

My assessment

10. The Council has accepted some fault, for which it has apologised. That was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
11. The Council did not address the initial delay of up to two months in contacting the landlord, which Ms X says was caused by it sending documents in small print. However, this did not cause a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
12. The Council also failed to address the question of whether Officer 1 sent the emails Ms X was expecting them to send in mid-February. Given that this was the last session with Officer 1 and that support for Ms X’s housing matters had been transferred to another organisation within one month of that session, I do not consider any failure to send the emails caused sufficient injustice to justify further investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice in relation to parts of the complaint to justify this, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome in relation to other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman