Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not investigate his complaint about a councillor failing to refer him to the Housing Ombudsman properly. The Ombudsman will not consider this complaint as investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained the Council did not investigate his complaint about a councillor failing to refer him to the Housing Ombudsman properly. Mr B says this delayed the Housing Ombudsman considering his complaint.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information Mr B provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Mr B with my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council about a notice served by a Council’s contactor. Mr B was unhappy with the Council’s response and took his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman (HO) in February 2019.
5. HO policy is that complainants can first submit a complaint eight weeks after they have had a final response from their landlord. Before that date, complainants can choose to contact a ‘designated person’ to help resolve the dispute with the landlord. A designated person can be an MP, a Tenant Panel or a local councillor. If the designated person cannot help, they can refer the complainant to the HO before the eight-week period has passed. Only one councillor at the Council acts as a designated person.
6. In March 2019 Mr B twice asked a councillor at the Council for a referral to the HO. The councillor first told Mr B a referral wasn’t required as the HO were considering his complaint. Mr B requested another referral after being directed back to the Council by the HO. On this occasion, the councillor did not respond to Mr B. The Council said this was because Mr B did not contact the designated person. It also said a referral was no longer appropriate and Mr B should wait the remaining two weeks to refer himself in April 2019.
7. Mr B was unhappy the councillor did not tell him he had not contacted the designated person and complained about his conduct in April 2019. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint in June 2019 and January 2020. It apologised the councillor had not referred Mr B but found no evidence the councillor had breached the Members’ Code of Conduct.
8. The Council’s Code of Conduct for Members does not require a councillor to direct members of the public to services. Therefore, it is unlikely investigation would identify fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr B’s complaint.
9. A designated person acts as an intermediary between the landlord and complainant and is not purely for referrals. Consideration by a designated person does not ensure a complaint is sent to the HO before the eight-week period for self-referral has lapsed. In any event, the potential delay is unlikely to have been more than a month. This is not a significant personal injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or significant personal injustice to Mr B.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman