The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council provide false information in a Freedom of Information response. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Much of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction, and any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our continued involvement.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council gave false information to him and the Information Commissioner (ICO) when it responded to his Freedom of Information (FoI) request. The FoI request related to the removal of Mr X’s belongings from a communal area at a Council housing block where he lives.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We can 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 an investigation if we decide: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) In relation to the second bullet point above, 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) We also 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) Finally, we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, and our Assessment Code.
Background
In 2018, the Council (Mr X’s landlord) removed his belongings from a communal area within his housing block. Mr X says the Council damaged these items. He complained to the Council in 2018 and 2019, and eventually escalated the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS). I understand Mr X also made a claim for the damage through the Council’s insurers. He says they made an offer of settlement but did not accept liability.
Mr X then made an FoI request in March 2022, for information related to the removal of his belongings. Following the involvement of the ICO, the Council provided responses to Mr X’s questions. He says the Council’s answers contained false statements, that he had not complained about the damage when he collected the items, and that the Council had asked a neighbour who the items belonged to.
My assessment
The 12-month time restriction referred to above would apply to any parts of the complaint about what happened in 2018/19. I see no reasons why Mr X would have been prevented from complaining to us sooner, so we will not exercise discretion to consider any earlier matters now.
And with reference to paragraph 6 above, we have no power to consider complaints about the Council’s management of its social housing. This would include the removal of Mr X’s items by the Council. Mr X should contact the HOS if he believes the information provided in the FoI response might alter its previous findings on his case.
The Ombudsman would also normally take the view that if a person thinks the Council is liable for damage to their property, then it is reasonable to expect them to go to court. The process is simple and relatively inexpensive, and the court can decide whether the Council is liable for the damage and what compensation, if any, it must pay. So, if Mr X believes the FoI response has a bearing on the outcome of the insurance claim he previously made, then it is reasonable to expect him to pursue this further in court.
I recognise Mr X believes the Council officers involved in the FoI response should be held to account for the alleged provision of false information. But given the Ombudsman’s very limited jurisdiction here, I do not see that any separable injustice to Mr X is so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because much of it is outside our jurisdiction, and any residual injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman