The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We shall not investigate Mr X’s complaint about what happened when he asked the Council for help to move home. This is because the Council has agreed my invitation to provide a suitable remedy for Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council did not deal properly with him when he contacted it wanting to move home because of homophobic hate crime, violence and slurs. Mr X says this resulted in him feeling vulnerable and needing talking therapy, he suffered distress, lost the opportunity to rent some properties, and went to time and trouble pursuing matters.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
I invited the Council to provide a remedy for the complaint.
I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments on it.
My assessment
The claim the Council’s actions resulted in Mr X needing therapy for the impact on his mental health is essentially a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider such claims, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. Liability in such cases is not necessarily straightforward legally, so it is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide such matters. Therefore it would be reasonable for Mr X to take court action if he wants a decision on any impact the Council’s actions had on his health.
This does not prevent the Ombudsman considering whether any fault by the Council caused Mr X avoidable distress, missed opportunity or time and trouble.
Mr X says the Council delayed helping him, then the officer who had been dealing with him stopped contacting him. The Council accepted Mr X’s case was not handed over when the case officer was absent. That failure meant there was no meaningful progress helping Mr X with his attempts to move home from September to November 2021. Mr X reports during that time he lost the opportunity to rent some properties he was interested in. The Council apologised to Mr X.
A telephone call with a Council officer left Mr X with the impression the Council was making assumptions about his childhood experiences, mental health problems and whether he had taken drugs. The Council apologised to Mr X and said it had addressed this in line with its employment procedures.
I told the Council that if we investigated this complaint, we would be likely to find fault by the Council on the above points. I consider those points caused Mr X avoidable distress, missed opportunity and time and trouble. I asked the Council to agree to pay Mr X £350 to recognise the injustice caused. The Council agreed.
It is clear there was some fault by the Council that caused Mr X injustice. I note Mr X resolved his housing situation (though without the level of Council help expected), so nothing is outstanding on that point. We would not necessarily be able to reach a clear enough view on all the events, especially the telephone call, of which there is no recording. In all the circumstances, it would be disproportionate for the Ombudsman to devote time and public money to investigating the details of what happened. The remedy the Council has now agreed is appropriate overall in terms of what the Ombudsman can achieve.
Commenting on my draft decision, Mr X reiterated he was left with uncertainty when his case officer stopped contacting him. Paragraphs 10 and 12 above recognise that impact. Mr X also expressed dissatisfaction with telephone calls he had with the Council, especially the one referred to in paragraph 11. I recognise Mr X’s understandable unhappiness about this. I consider we cannot reasonably achieve more on those points than the remedy the Council has agreed.
Agreed action
At my invitation, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £350 within four weeks of today. This is a symbolic amount, to recognise the injustice mentioned in paragraph 12. It is not ‘compensation’ that a court might award.
Final decision
We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has now agreed a suitable remedy for Mr X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman