Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about bias and discrimination by the Council because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and because the Council has agreed to take further action in relation to another complaint. We will not consider its complaints handling further because it has apologised and offered a payment to remedy the injustice caused by its delays so further investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X made a number of complaints about the Council, including that:
• it had repeatedly failed to share information with him when he made subject access and freedom of information requests;
• its records and communications showed it acted with bias in its dealings with him, and that it had discriminated against him on the basis of his nationality;

and

• its complaints handling was poor, and it failed to properly follow the LGSCO’s Complaints Handling Code.
3. Mr X said the Council’s conduct caused considerable distress to him and his family. He said he had been put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council for accurate information. He added that he encountered prolonged delays, misdirection and internal communications that appeared to discredit his intentions, causing distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

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

6. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Late complaints

9. Mr X has made multiple complaints about events going back many years. He said he was not able to complain to us earlier because he was waiting for information to be shared with him following subject access and freedom of information requests. He said full information was not shared until after he referred his concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Whilst I accept the delay in sharing information, I do not consider there are good reasons to consider events prior to August 2022 because the lapse of time would make it very difficult for us to reach robust findings or achieve a worthwhile outcome.
10. This decision provides a summary only and is not intended to provide a full record of all the concerns raised and the documents provided by Mr X and the Council.

Information sharing

11. Mr X made a number of subject access and freedom of information requests from February 2022. He referred concerns about delays in responding, incomplete responses and a refusal to respond to one request on the grounds the request was vexatious to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on several occasions. He has provided evidence to show the Council was also slow to respond to the ICO and that the ICO determined the Council had not complied with its obligations in May 2024.
12. Mr X said the Council deliberately reframed his requests to avoid its duty to share information with him. In communications with the Council, he said Council officers may be deliberately destroying, hiding or altering information to prevent it being released to him. The Council denied this, but Mr X said there was no evidence it had investigated his concerns before reaching that position.
13. As stated, Mr X has made a number of referrals to the ICO and it has made various decisions from 2022 onwards. Whilst I have considered the information provided when considering the other concerns raised as part of this complaint, the ICO is the appropriate body to consider concerns about information sharing and compliance with data regulations and, in any case, we would not investigate complaints about matters that have already been referred to it.

Bias and discrimination

14. Mr X raised a number of concerns with the Council about bias and potential discrimination on the grounds of his nationality, including that:
• comments were made by an officer in an internal email that “we might be better off without him” as a partner, which he says was circulated to several officers and was cited in at least three separate meetings. Although he raised concerns with the Council, he says it failed to respond;
• comments were made by an officer in another email about Mr X wanting to get “the maximum he can for himself”, which suggested he was motivated by money, which he disputes;
• comments were made in another internal email to the effect the officer was not comfortable responding to communications from Mr X as they felt “harassed by him”.
15. Mr X also made a complaint about comments made by a councillor, which we have considered separately.
16. Mr X said that inaccurate and potentially damaging internal records framed and shaped the way the Council responded to subsequent requests and complaints.
17. It is not our role to say whether a council has discriminated against a person as this is a legal matter that only the courts could determine. The evidence seen suggests a breakdown of trust on both sides. The records seen show Mr X regularly challenged the Council’s account and sought detailed clarification or evidence to support what it had said (which is not to say his challenges were unjustified). As a result, Council officers and councillors appear to have found him difficult to communicate with and may have become defensive. Whilst a small number of comments made in internal records and emails could be considered unprofessional, I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation by us, nor that we could achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so. In any case, the Council has agreed (in another case) to its internal audit team considering his concerns about bias and discrimination further and I am satisfied this action is appropriate to address this part of the complaint.

Complaints handling

18. Mr X raised various concerns about the Councils complaints handling in the period under consideration. He complained the Council failed to respond in the timescales in its published policy, failed to address all the issues he raised, and some complaints were not addressed at stage 2 without any proper basis or explanation for not doing so. He also complained that some councillors and officers, who had been involved in previous years in relation to his matters, were later involved in complaints handling investigations or responses.
19. Mr X also said the Council failed to adhere to the LGSCO’s Complaints Handling Code because it kept starting the complaints process again at stage 1 when he raised a fresh concern, rather than treating it as an ongoing matter.
20. From the records seen, the Council failed to respond to complaints from Mr X within its published timescales on a number of occasions, for which it has provided apologies.
21. I note that, when Mr X complained to us in April 2024, we sent the complaint to the Council and asked it to confirm it had considered the issues raised through its complaints process. This caused some confusion for the Council as many of the issues in the complaint to us were historic and had already been addressed through the complaints process but were reframed or expanded upon in the complaint to us as Mr X sought to show a pattern of behaviour over many years. It asked us for clarification about what it should do, which we did not provide, and that led to a delay in it responding to Mr X.
22. In its complaint response in December 2025, the Council acknowledged errors in its handling of another complaint in 2025 that led to a delay in responding at stage 2, for which apologised. In respect of delays in complaints handling in the last 12 months, the Council has offered to pay Mr X £200 to remedy the frustration caused, which is appropriate.
23. In the December 2025 response, the Council also explained that two officers Mr X had referred to were part of its complaints team and it was therefore not wrong for them to be involved in multiple complaints. From the records seen, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council has involved officers in complaints handling to justify further investigation.
24. We encourage councils to adopt our Complaints Handling Code, which was launched in February 2024, and I understand this Council has done so. However, we are not currently considering the Code as part of our processes, whilst we work with a number of pilot councils to understand the impact of the Code and provide further guidance to the sector. We will therefore not consider Mr X’s complaint about failure to comply with the Code further.
25. In summary, I note there were delays in complaints handling across the period considered, but the Council has appropriately addressed the injustice caused. Further, whilst I acknowledge Mr X remains unhappy with the quality of the responses received, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation, nor do I consider that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Poor signposting

26. Mr X also raised concerns that the Council had wrongly signposted him to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) in relation to complaints about his property, which is let to the Council. He pointed out we have previously informed the Council that such complaints should be referred to us and suggests the Council has failed to implement our recommendations. He said the incorrect signposting could have caused a delay in him complaining to us.
27. I note that two of the three occasions on which the Council referred Mr X to HOS occurred before it confirmed to us it has taken the action agreed following the complaint by a third party. Whilst it is disappointing to note the Council again signposted Mr X to HOS in December 2025, it is clear Mr X was aware of the correct Ombudsman to complain to, so this did not cause him sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation. The Council is asked to note where the complaint involves concerns a property let by a complainant to the Council, it should signpost to us at the end of the complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

28. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about bias and discrimination because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement and because the Council has agreed to investigate further in relation to another complaint. The Council has also already apologised and agreed to make a payment for complaints handling delays and further investigation by us would not achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman