Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s refusal to consider Ms X’s concerns about a Prohibition Order. This is because it was reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal to a Tribunal against the issuing of the Order. It is not proportionate to investigate the complaint handling in isolation. Further, Ms X can raise her concerns about the Council’s alleged failure to provide information, to the Information Commissioner as it is better placed to consider.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s complaints handling in connection with a Prohibition Order (“the Order”). Ms X says the Council has failed to be transparent about the hazards identified which has had a severe personal and financial impact on her.
2. Ms X would like the Council to be transparent about its decision, and she wants a review of her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s reasons for not investigating Ms X’s complaint.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X says the Council’s decision to serve the Order resulted in her losing her business, home, financial stability and her family were placed in emergency accommodation. She is seeking full disclosure of the evidence relied on by the Council for serving the Order and wants her complaint reviewed.
9. The Council says Ms X’s complaint falls outside of its complaints procedure due to the Order carrying legal appeal rights to a tribunal.
10. We will not investigate. This is because it was reasonable to expect Ms X to complain to the Residential Property Tribunal about the merits of the Order including the assessment of hazards. The Tribunal is the appropriate and specialist remedy as it may confirm, quash or vary the Order while the Ombudsman does not have this power.

The remaining concerns about complaint handling and lack of information are not separable from the core issue, and it would not be proportionate to investigate them in isolation. Ms X can approach the Information Commissioner, as the national regulator for information rights matters, if she remains concerned that the Council has not provided her with the information she seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to use her legal right to appeal to a tribunal. It would not be proportionate to investigate Ms X’s remaining concerns. And the Information Commissioner is better placed to the look at the complaint about the Council’s failure to share information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman