Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his visit to the Council’s One Stop Shop. This is because a further investigation of the matter by this office is unlikely to be able to add to the response and explanation already provided via the Council’s own investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that during his visit to the Council’s One Stop Shop an officer made aggressive identification checks and made a discriminatory comment in saying he should go back to his previous city despite him now living in the Council’s area. He also complains that, despite waiting for three hours to be seen by the Housing Options Team, his ticket number was not called and his ticket was closed. Mr X says the delay caused him to miss a private rental viewing.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about his visit to its One Stop Shop, as set out in paragraph one, above.
7. The Council explained it needs to check residency when it appears residents from outside the Council’s area are seeking support. This is to avoid confusion or unnecessary waiting. The identification document Mr X provided showed an address in a different city and this is what caused the officer to question it. It apologised to Mr X that he felt this remark was discriminatory and that the reason for the check was not made clear to him at the time. It spoke to the officer who made the comment and said it would try to make sure this did not happen again. It noted that once the correct information was established Mr X was issued a ticket to be seen.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint that his ticket number was not called, it confirmed he was called three times when it was his turn to be seen but he did not respond. This meant his ticket number was closed down as it appeared he was no longer in the waiting area. It acknowledged it is a busy waiting area but explained it is the customer’s responsibility to listen and respond when called to be seen.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely that a further investigation by this office could add to the response and explanation already provided by the Council via its own previous investigation. It has explained why Mr X was questioned about his residency and has apologised that this was not clear to him at the time. It has also confirmed that it called Mr X three times when it was his turn to be seen. I acknowledge Mr X disagrees it did so but I have no reason to doubt either account and the available information has already been considered via the Council’s own investigation. I do not see we could add to the response already provided and so it would not be a good use of limited public funds for us to also investigate it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response already provided by the Council on these matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman