Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell him about proposed solutions to protect the privacy of his home. We found fault as the Council took a significant amount of time to share the options with him. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and remind officers of relevant procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide him with information on suggested possible solutions to protect his privacy from the new development next to his home. Mr X also complains the Council suggested it may be able to move him to another property on medical grounds but that this has not materialised.
2. Mr X says this has affected his quality of life and his mental health.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I will not investigate the planning process for the development in question as this was granted permission in 2015. Paragraph six (below) applies to this complaint. We cannot investigate when a complainant takes more than 12 months to complain about something a council has done, unless we decide there are good reasons for any such delay. Mr X was aware of the development at the time permission was granted and did not approach the Ombudsman.
4. In addition to the original complaint made to us by Mr X, it became apparent during my investigation that there had been a significant delay in responding to Mr X’s stage one complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate this issue. I will therefore investigate from October 2021. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate before this time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
10. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

What happened

11. Mr X originally contacted the Ombudsman in November 2021 to register a complaint about the nearby development which is the subject of this complaint. The development and land it sits on is owned by the Council itself.
12. Mr X is a council tenant. He had complained to the Council about how close the development was to his own property and about some of the issues during construction. He was unhappy as he felt the newly constructed properties next to his could easily see into various rooms in his home.
13. We determined that he had not completed the Council’s complaints process and so asked him to do so.
14. At the end of March 2022, Mr X again contacted the Ombudsman to register a complaint but did not provide evidence he had completed the complaints process.
15. After making enquiries with the Council, it sent us evidence that it had sent Mr X his final complaint response at the beginning of March 2022.
16. In this stage two final response, the Council said, “We fully understand your concern and want to find a solution to address it.”
17. The Council proposed to speak to the contractors who were doing the building work. It said the contractor would explore a number of options such as installing a lower panel of obscured glass to the bedroom windows of the rooms which overlooked his or fitting privacy screens to his balcony. It also said it would conduct daylight and sunlight assessments as part of the process.
18. The Council said the selected measures would be put in place across all floors to ensure the impact was lessened for those affected.
19. We made a decision to put Mr X’s complaint on hold until he knew what the proposed solutions would definitely be. We advised him he could contact us again if he was still unhappy when the Council advised him of its suggested solutions.
20. At the end of January 2023, Mr X again approached the Ombudsman to say he was still waiting for the Council to tell him what its suggestions were.
21. We made enquiries with the Council. At the beginning of February 2023, it said it had been in contact with Mr X to explore whether any of the solutions it could offer were suitable to him.
22. The proposed solutions were:
• a set of external blinds on his balcony attached to the underneath of the balcony above which he would control; or
• opaque film to the lower half of the bedroom windows in the nearby development to obscure views into his property but allow light into the room.
23. The Council said Mr X had asked it to visit once the scaffolding had been removed so he could discuss how the proposed options might work. It said it expected the scaffolding to be removed in the next few weeks and that Mr X was aware of this.
24. At the end of February 2023, Mr X told us he did not wish to wait any longer. Given the amount of time that had passed since the Council had said it would work to find solutions for the issues, the Ombudsman decided at this time to investigate the complaint.
25. At the beginning of April, Council officers visited Mr X in his home to further explain both options. Mr X said he did not wish to go ahead with either.
26. During this meeting, Mr X allegedly told the Council he just wanted to move from the property. The visiting officers said they would look into the process for him and contact the council’s lettings team to establish if he was already on any priority list to be moved.
27. At the time of writing, Mr X is still living in the property and has not agreed to either of the proposed solutions.

Analysis

Complaint handling

28. Mr X registered a complaint with the Council at the beginning of October 2021.
29. The Council’s published complaint handling procedure states it aims to provide a full written response within 20 working days.
30. The Council did not send Mr X’s stage one response until late in January 2022, over 70 working days later.
31. Council records show the officer responsible had “Overlooked it due to other priorities.”
32. The Council’s eventual response apologised for the delay but did not explain it in any way.
33. The delay in responding was later explained in Mr X’s stage two complaint response. This explanation, however, was only given when Mr X had specifically complained about the delay as part of his escalation to stage two.
34. This lack of timely communication is fault. It would have caused Mr X avoidable frustration and delay. The delay also denied Mr X the opportunity to progress through the Council’s two stage complaints process as quickly as he might otherwise have done. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Privacy solutions

35. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said the privacy issue and potential solutions were originally discussed with its contractor in March 2022. The Council said various internal discussions had been held by the contractor. The Council said these discussions took much longer than expected.
36. It was not until the very beginning of February 2023 that the final options were submitted to the delivery team. The Council confirmed it had then sent an email to Mr X to advise of the options as mentioned above.
37. I asked the Council to provide me with details of any correspondence between it and Mr X whilst he was waiting for it to advise him of the final privacy solutions.
38. The Council has provided no evidence to say it had at any point communicated with Mr X about the solutions during the 11 months between its stage two complaint response and its email to him at the beginning of February 2023.
39. The Council did, however, provide two emails which are relevant to this complaint.
40. The first email is dated the end of January 2023 and was an internal enquiry as to the current position with the proposed solutions. Evidence provided clearly indicates that this email was prompted by the enquiries the Ombudsman had made about the situation.
41. The second email at the very beginning of February 2023 was prompted by the first. I am satisfied it shows the matter had been forgotten about. The email suggested the Council could request more time to respond to the Ombudsman’s enquiries in order to present a finalised option and timeline.
42. This is in contrast to the Council’s response that discussions had taken much longer than expected. I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities and with a lack of other evidence to the contrary, the Council let the matter drift. It is clear that whilst discussions had taken place, the matter had not been a priority.
43. This delay is fault. It would have caused Mr X avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council should have worked more decisively to finalise proposed solutions.
44. There are no guidelines to say how often the Council should have communicated with Mr X. However, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this complaint and given its previous delays, it should have communicated with Mr X to keep him up to date with its promised solutions. As it was, the Council only contacted Mr X when he had again complained to the Ombudsman and we had again enquired what the current situation was. This lack of communication is fault. It would have caused Mr X avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused by these faults.
45. In terms of the suitability of the proposed solutions, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether they are suitable or not. The Council has made suggestions it feels are appropriate. Mr X has the right to decline the solutions on offer if he chooses not to accept them, which he has done. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault on the part of the Council.

Moving to a new property on medical grounds

46. Mr X also complains the Council suggested it may be able to move him to another property but this has not happened.
47. Evidence provided by the Council shows that Mr X had already contacted it with a view to being rehoused on medical grounds as far back as August 2022.
48. As part of the discussions about the proposed privacy solutions, officers visited Mr X in April 2023. During this meeting, Mr X stated that he wished to move.
49. In response to my enquiries about this, the Council has provided comment and evidence to show that it advised Mr X he must follow all normal procedures to be assessed for potential rehousing. One of the officers who visited Mr X contacted the lettings team and then passed on relevant information of the next steps.
50. I am satisfied there is no evidence to suggest Council officers told Mr X he would be able to move or that they could organise this for him. On this basis I am satisfied the Council has not acted with fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• make a meaningful apology to Mr X for the delays and lack of communication he has experienced;
• pay Mr X £250 to acknowledge the frustrations and distress caused;
• remind relevant officers to adhere to the Council’s complaints handling policy and timescales; and
• remind relevant officers to ensure they are aware they should communicate with complainants (outside of the complaints process), without unnecessary delay. If there are going to be delays, they should keep complainants updated.
52. The suggested payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman