Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council intentionally maintaining his state of homelessness by manipulating financial records. This is because he has used an alternative remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. Therefore, the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has intentionally maintained his state of homelessness by manipulating financial records.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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 an investigation if we decide:

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The complaint documents provided to us by Mr X is related to complaints he raised to the Council in 2021. The complaints relate to:
• Information sharing between the Council and accommodation provider in 2015
• Failure to maintain accurate information relating to bailiff attendance in 2014.
• Information provided regarding the withdrawal of an accommodation in 2014.
• The Council’s handling of his subject access requests made in 2018 and 2020.
7. None of these complaints are matters we would investigate as the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaints.
8. The Council also confirmed that Mr X had started court proceedings regarding allegations of the Council commissioning a wrongful or unlawful act (malfeasance), failure to perform its duty correctly (misfeasance), and failure to perform an act that is required by law (non-feasance). Mr X said the Council’s actions were deliberately designed to frustrate his desire for accommodation.
9. The evidence available also shows the Courts have previously considered proceedings relating to Mr X’s housing history with the Council from 2009 to 2014 and relating to the Council obtaining a possession order.
10. Mr X’s complaint is that the Council has deliberately maintained his state of homelessness. Therefore, I am satisfied the matter he complains to us about is in substance the same as the matters he has claimed in court. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has used an alternative remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law. Therefore, the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman