Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in connection with disrepair issues at the property he rents out to a tenant. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council acted with bias in the way it dealt with him concerning disrepair issues at the property he rents out to a tenant. He says officers did not seek his side of the story, ganged up on him to cover their tracks and he feels he has been bullied and side-lined because of his ethnicity. He seeks the sacking or suspension of the officers involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 or continue with an investigation if 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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X rents out a property to a tenant. The tenant contacted the Council about disrepair issues at the property. The Council sent the tenant and Mr X a letter to inform them it would be visiting the property to carry out an inspection.
6. Based on the visit and evidence provided by the tenant, the officer who attended advised the parties of the work which needed to be carried out.
7. Mr X did the work but he then complained to the Council that it had acted unfairly and had not spoken to him to hear his side of the story. He said some of the repairs had been needed because of deliberate damage by the tenant. He also complained about the conduct of an officer he spoke to over the telephone who he believed had been rude to him and biased against him.
8. The Council responded to the complaint by explaining the case officer had not failed to invite Mr X to the inspection. It said he had been sent a letter and that he could have told the Council if he had wanted to attend. It noted the case officer did not agree the tenant had caused damage and instead it was the officer’s professional opinion it had been the result of general wear and tear and a lack of maintenance.
9. It considered Mr X’s claim about the nature of the telephone conversation he had had with another officer but it found no evidence to support it.
10. Dissatisfied with the Council officers’ handling of his case, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

11. The case officer used their professional judgement to assess the disrepair at Mr X’s property. While Mr X may have his own views about the cause of the disrepair, it is not our role to review the merits of the case officer’s decision or to question their professional judgement.
12. Mr X complains of bias and of being bullied and intimidated and he says he feels this occurred because of his ethnicity. However, he has provided no evidence to support this contention.
13. Mr X seeks the sacking or suspension of the officers who have been involved in his case. However, not only is it unlikely an investigation would find evidence of fault, but the outcome he seeks is not a remedy we can recommend.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman