Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions when contacting the complainant’s mother about a dangerous wall and disregarding its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. We consider further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Also we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. And it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office with concerns about the Council’s failure to share information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains for his mother, Mrs Y.
2. Mr X says the Council acted inappropriately when it issued threatening correspondence to her. He says the Council:
• Prematurely and incorrectly assigned legal responsibility to his mother for repairs to a wall.
• Ignored Mrs Y’s known mental vulnerabilities thereby breaching the Equalities Act 2010.
• Sent two identical, intimidating letters exacerbating Mrs Y’s health condition.

He also says a senior Council officer is the son of a nearby property owner which is a conflict of interest.

3. Mr X wants the Council to:
• apologise for the distress caused to Mrs Y
• pay her £6,576 to reimburse her for the amount she paid to repair the wall; and;
• review all internal policies and procedures to ensure communication with vulnerable residents align with its statutory duties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• 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.

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council sent two letters to Mrs Y advising her that a wall at the rear of her garden was dangerous. It required her to take steps to remove the danger within 28 days. The letter also advised a failure to remove the danger may result in the Council applying to the Magistrates Court for an Order.
10. Unfortunately the Council sent two identical letters.
11. Mr X says Mrs Y is a vulnerable, elderly person with dementia and the Council knew this because the information had been provided for council tax purposes. He also says Mrs X is not responsible for the wall, that it was not dangerous and the Council had a conflict of interest because a senior officer is the son of Mrs Y’s neighbour.
12. The Council has apologised for the content of the letters and the distress caused. It acknowledges it was not clear, was not in plain English and did not include an explanation of how Mrs Y could seek help. It has also confirmed it has reminded staff of the need for clear communications.
13. The Council has also explained data protection regulations do not allow it to routinely share sensitive personal data between departments. I understand Mrs Y provided personal information for council tax purposes but this is not automatically accessible to the building control team. If Mr X believes the Council is not following the requirements of the data protection regulations, it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the Information Commissioner.
14. Mr X says the Council had a conflict of interest because a senior officer is the son of Mrs Y’s neighbour. I have seen no evidence the Council took this into consideration before writing to Mrs Y. The Council confirms it searched the Land Registry before sending the letters. It says records show Mrs Y as the property owner, but not specifically who owns the boundary wall. It says it wrote to her as it believed she is most likely to own the wall.
15. This is a professional judgement made by the Council’s officers. It was also the officer’s professional judgement that the wall was dangerous. I understand Mr X disagrees with both matters. However, it is not our role to determine whether Mrs Y owns the wall or whether it was dangerous.
16. Mr X wants the Council to pay Mrs Y £6,576 which the amount she paid to have the wall repaired. This is not something we can achieve. If he believes the Council is liable to reimburse Mrs Y, he can ask the courts to consider the matter.
17. I understand Mr X believes the Council has failed to meet its statutory obligations under the Equality Act. We cannot determine whether the Council has breached the Equality Act, this is a matter for the court. We can consider if the Council had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty. In this case the Council accepts its letters were unclear and did not provide details on how Mrs Y could seek help. However, it has apologised for this and for sending two letters instead of one. It has also confirmed staff have been reminded of their obligations on sending clear communications. I do not consider further investigation of this point will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we consider:
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; and
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman