Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Miss X’s concerns about a third party. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice in the complaints handling and insufficient fault in the responses concerning the substantive matters. Finally, we have no remit to investigate any matter in connection with the Council’s provision or management of social housing.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council has failed to investigate her concerns about suspected tenancy and benefit fraud, antisocial behaviour, and safeguarding concerns relating to a child at a nearby property.
2. Miss X says she is feeling anxious and stressed. She wants the Council to investigate; review the evidence she has collected an act against the third-party, including eviction proceedings.

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 complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, 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,
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and read the complaint responses.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X is concerned about housing tenancy and housing benefit fraud by a third party. She is also concerned about the welfare of a child. And she reports suffering anti-social behaviour that is causing her sleep deprivation. She also complains that she has evidence the Council has failed to take from her.
9. The Council investigated Ms X’s concerns under both stages of its complaints procedure. The Council’s first complaint response advised it would take ‘appropriate action’ but that it would not be able to feedback to Ms X citing the data protection regulations. It also provided contact information for its fraud section, the noise team and the relevant resident services officer.
10. The Council’s second complaint response reaffirmed that it could not breach data protection regulations concerning third parties. It noted it had received two reports about noise nuisance, but these did not represent incidents that could be actioned as statutory noise nuisance. It advised Ms X that she could take her own action in the magistrates court against a third party causing her to suffer statutory nuisance. And it confirmed social services had been informed regarding the safeguarding alert.
11. We will not investigate. There is no obligation on the Council to take Ms X’s doorbell evidence recording a third party. Any investigation by the Council can source its own primary evidence.
12. I do note the Council’s second complaint response was delayed, I do not see evidence of a significant injustice arising from the delay. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the detail of the Council’s responses. It has signposted the correct contact details for Ms X’s reports, checked the alleged noise nuisance/anti-social behaviour reports with its noise team and passed on the safeguarding issue to social services. Finally, there is nothing wrong with the Council confirming it cannot share personal data concerning third parties and/or the progress/outcome of any fraud investigation.
13. With respect to Ms X wanting the Council to evict the third party, we have no remit to consider any matter in connection with the Council’s role as a social housing provider. This extends to not investigating any complaint about the management and provision of a social housing tenancy.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice in the complaints handling and insufficient evidence of fault in the responses to the matters raised. We have no remit to consider matters in connection with the Council’s role as a provider/manager of social housing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman