The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a contractor switched off his solar panels when carrying out works to his property and about the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation of the matter.
The complaint
Mr X complains a contractor switched off his solar panels when carrying out works to his property and that the Council delayed in responding to his complaint about it. He also complains the contractor phoned him after he complained. Mr X would like the Council to compensate him for the money he lost from the panels being switched off for several months.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start an investigation if we decide: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about the matters set out in paragraph one, above.
The Council acknowledged its delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and apologised for this. It explained this was caused by the officer involved needing to take unplanned personal leave and he did not have the opportunity to delegate the matter.
The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about the solar panels being switched off. It found no evidence to support Mr X’s view that the contractor had switched them off. The contractor said he had not switched off the panels and there would have been no need for him to do so in order to carry out the works. The Council told Mr X it would not consider his complaint further as it was unlikely it would lead to a different outcome.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because a further investigation by this office is unlikely to be able to add to the investigation and response already provided via the Council’s investigation of the matter. The contractor has already given his account of the matter and whilst this clearly differs from Mr X’s view it is unlikely any further consideration of the matter would lead to either party changing their recollection. We have no reason to doubt either party’s view and we would not be able to reach a reliable view further to that already provided via the Council’s investigation. As such, there is nothing more an investigation by this office could achieve and it would not be a good use of limited public resources for us to also investigate the matter.
The Council has already acknowledged, explained and apologised for the initial short delay in responding to the complaint and there is nothing further we would add or recommend on that point. I note Mr X is dissatisfied the contractor called him following the complaint however this in itself has not caused any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely a further investigation by this office could add to the response the Council has already provided on the matter via its own investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman