Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council approved tenants for properties near Mr X’s home. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to follow the correct process when it approved tenants for four new flats near his home.
2. Mr X says the Council should provide documentary evidence to support its decision-making process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X is concerned the Council failed to ensure the tenants of four flats near his home were “approved persons” according to the section 106 legal agreement for the properties.
8. The Council confirms the eligibility of the applicants for the flats were checked by the housing association, another council involved in the scheme and the Council. It says the applicants met at least one if not more of the requirements stated in the legal agreement. The checks included:
• Previous tenancy history.
• Support needs; and
• Information from partner agencies including (but not limited to) the Probation Service, Social Services and specialist support agencies.
9. The Council has advised Mr X the relevant information is attached to the individual tenant’s file. However it will not release the information citing data protection restrictions.
10. I understand Mr X believes the Council did not follow the correct process and ensure the correct checks were made to ensure the tenant met the eligibility criteria. However, from the information I have seen there is not enough information evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
11. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he believes the Council is withholding information he is entitled to see. The ICO is the body set up by Parliament to uphold information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman