Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of housing conditions, its response to Anti-Social behaviour and its application of its homelessness duties.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of the Council in relation to his housing issues and problems he has had with a neighbour. He says:

• the Council did not identify or enforce repairs on a property which he rented directly from a Social Housing provider.
• the Council did not adequately address Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and instead forced him to move.
• the property he was moved to was unsuitable.
• the Council did not address his complaints about this matter or address his vulnerabilities and health conditions.

Mr X says this has left him homeless and decanted and has impacted his mental health.

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 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant, the Council and the Housing Ombudsman.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The amount of information provided by Mr X, the Council and the Housing Ombudsman was considerable. I have not referred to every element of that information here, but I have not ignored its significance when making my decision. I have covered all the key issues and all the detail provided will fall under the points below.
9. Mr X has now taken court action regarding the repairs to the property, which he rented directly from a Social Housing provider. We cannot investigate because he has taken court action.
10. Mr X complained to the Housing Ombudsman about the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) he was experiencing. The Housing Ombudsman considered Mr X’s complaint, and a remedy was recommended. I do not consider any remaining injustice Mr X may have suffered because of this issue would be significant enough to warrant an investigation.
11. The Council offered Mr X alternative accommodation as it considered the ASB had effectively made him homeless. This was a proper application of its duty. It is unlikely further investigation will identify fault.
12. Mr X complained the property he was moved to was unsuitable. The Council inspected the property and did not identify the problems Mr X had raised. Within a few weeks it offered him permanent accommodation at another property. Any injustice caused would not be significant enough to justify our involvement.
13. He complains the Council did not address his complaints about this matter or address his vulnerabilities and health conditions. There is no evidence Mr X requested specific accommodations. The Council took account of his diagnosis in its assessments. It is unlikely further investigation will identify fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman