Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s response to his allegations of housing benefit fraud in connection with a property owned by his family and rented out to tenants. The complaint falls outside our jurisdiction because it is a late complaint and because Mr B has a legal remedy through the courts if he considers the Council has liability.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council did not act on his allegations of housing benefit fraud connected to his family’s privately owned and rented out property. He says the Council should compensate the family for damage caused to the property by the people living there and for the loss of rent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

5. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B’s family rented out their property to tenants. In 2016 Mr B contacted the Council to report housing benefit fraud in connection with the property and the tenants living in it.
7. The property was damaged and Mr B, believing the Council to be liable for the damage because of housing benefit fraud, sought compensation from the Council.
8. The Council explained to Mr B in 2018 that as it had had no involvement in what was a privately-rented property it was not liable. Mr B’s claim was referred to the Council’s insurers who confirmed the Council’s position and advised Mr B that if he was unhappy with the decision he could complain to the Ombudsman or take the Council to court.

Assessment

9. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The restrictions highlighted at paragraph 2 and 3 apply to Mr B’s complaint because he was aware of the matters of which he complains three years ago and because he has an alternative remedy by way of legal proceedings against the Council if he wishes to pursue his claim for damages.
10. As I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to investigate the late complaint, and because he has a legal remedy we would reasonably expect him to make use of, the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it falls outside our jurisdiction because it is a late complaint and because Mr B has a legal remedy through the courts if he considers the Council has liability.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman