Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to Mr X and its complaint handling. This is because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the delay in the Council’s response to his emails relating to possible planning enforcement action. He further complains about the Council’s complaints process. Mr X says this caused him stress, inconvenience and wasted time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Mr X says the Council took six weeks to respond to his email about possible enforcement action on his house in multiple occupation (HMO). While I understand this caused some frustration and uncertainty, no enforcement action took place within that time. The Council apologised for its delay and advised Mr X about his options and the Council’s possible courses of action. So, I do not consider the delay caused a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigating the complaint. Mr X also refers to his time and inconvenience, and I note he had to chase a response. However, in the circumstances, those are not significant enough injustices to warrant investigating.
7. Mr X further complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman