Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of harassment by his landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making processes to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not provide adequate assistance when he reported harassment by his landlord.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X told the Council his private landlord entered his property several times without proper notice and had tampered with his security camera. He asked the Council to take action under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
7. The Council decided the landlord’s actions did not meet the threshold under the Act because there was no indication his landlord intended to pressure Mr X give up his home or refrain from exercising his rights. The Council asked Mr X to keep a diary of any further incidents and report them to the Council. The Council also offered to contact Mr X’s landlord to advise them to provide 24 hours’ before going to the property.
8. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
9. The evidence shows the Council considered the relevant information and applied the correct legal test. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s processes here to warrant an investigation.
10. Mr X also complains the Council said his landlord could decide to start proceedings for a no‑fault eviction. The Council says it provided this information so Mr X could make an informed decision about whether he wanted it to contact his landlord. While I appreciate Mr X found the advice distressing, further investigation of this comment would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.
11. We will also not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making processes to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman