Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a homeowner that the Council has treated him unfairly by funding insulation works at his neighbour’s property but refusing to do the same in his case. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in this respect.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained that the Council was treating him unfairly by installing external wall cladding at the semi–detached property next door to his but refusing to help him in the same way. Mr X also felt this showed the Council had lied to him because it had told him previously that funding was only available for external insulation works to terraced properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided about his complaint and the comments he made over the telephone. I also gave Mr X an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in his case. In addition I took account of the Council’s responses to my enquiries about Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X lives in a semi-detached house in the Council’s area. The house used to be owned by the Council but was sold to a tenant under the Right to Buy scheme. Mr X bought the property at a later stage.
5. However the semi next door to Mr X is still owned by the Council and rented out to a tenant.
6. Mr X said his house is poorly insulated and expensive to heat. Mr X said his house would benefit from external wall cladding to improve insulation.
7. Mr X applied to the Council for assistance in funding external wall insulation, but he did not qualify for help under any of its current schemes for private homeowners. In particular the Council said it had a limited scheme to fund external wall insulation in privately owned properties, but this only applied to terraced houses.
8. Recently Mr X received a notice from the Council that it was proposing to do various improvement works at the neighbouring semi, including the installation of external wall insulation.
9. As a result Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He felt it was unfair of the Council not to offer him the same improvements and that it had lied in saying external wall insulation was only available for terraced properties.
10. In response the Council said it was not funding any insulation work at his neighbour’s property and commented that private owners were free to arrange their own home improvements. The Council also confirmed that its previous financial assistance scheme for homeowners had only applied to terraced houses.
11. Mr X escalated his complaint, but the Council’s final response re-iterated the views it had set out in its first response. Meantime Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
12. However, in response to my enquiries the Council acknowledged it had misunderstood Mr X’s complaint. It thought he was referring to a neighbouring privately-owned property in the same road rather than to the next-door semi, and that was why it said it was not funding the works.
13. The Council confirmed that it does, in fact, own Mr X’s next-door neighbour’s house, and that it is funding the improvement works at the property. But the Council stressed the funding is coming from its Housing Revenue Account, which is a ring-fenced account that only applies to Council housing. The Council also offered an apology to Mr X for not clarifying this matter in its previous complaint responses.

Back to top

Analysis

14. I consider there has been some fault by the Council in Mr X’s case because of its misunderstanding about his complaint and the inaccurate responses it sent him. This has undoubtedly made matters more confusing for Mr X.
15. But I also consider the Council has now satisfactorily addressed this matter by correcting its misunderstanding and offering an apology to Mr X. As a result I do not see any need for us to pursue this part of Mr X’s complaint any further.
16. In addition I am not convinced there is any sign of fault by the Council regarding Mr X’s main complaints that it is acting unfairly by carrying out insulation works to his neighbour’s property and not to his, and that it has lied to him about only funding external wall insulation for privately owned terraced houses.
17. In particular I am satisfied that the funding for the insulation works at Mr X’s neighbour’s house is not available in his case because that funding only applies to Council tenants. As I understand it, the Council would not be allowed to use its Housing Revenue Account to pay for works to privately owned properties like Mr X’s house, and any funding to improve insulation in private properties has to come from completely different sources.
18. I also see no reason to doubt that there is no funding the Council can access at present which would help in Mr X’s case. In addition I see no suggestion the Council has lied to Mr X in saying its previous scheme for external wall insulation for private properties was limited to terraced housing.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has treated him unfairly by funding external wall insulation at his neighbour’s property but not at his. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman