Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a telephone call and the handling of Miss X’s complaint about the call. This is mainly because it is unlikely we would reach a clear enough view about the telephone call or recommend more than the Council has already done for the poor complaint-handling.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council handled a telephone call with her and that it did not properly investigate her complaint about this. She says the conduct of the call left her feeling unsafe and affected her mental health and states the “apparent destruction of records” damaged her faith in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The complaint arose from a housing manager at the Council telephoning Miss X about Miss X’s social housing application. Miss X disagrees with what the Council now says was the call’s purpose and with what the Council says it explained during the call. Miss X is also dissatisfied with the manager’s attitude during the call and how the manager handled the call. Clearly, there are disputed versions of what was said and how it was said. There is no recording of the call. It is unlikely any investigation by us could reach a clear enough view of what happened.
7. Miss X states she is dissatisfied the Council did not keep the call recording and she suggests the Council destroyed it. However, the Council says it did not record the call anyway. We shall not be able to reach a clear enough view now on whether a recording of this call ever existed. Anyway, councils do not have to record every call so we would not find fault in the Council not recording the call.
8. Nevertheless, I can address one of Miss X’s points about the call. Miss X says the manager did not properly check she was speaking to the correct person before discussing Miss X’s housing application. However, both the Council and Miss X agree the manager intended to speak to Miss X and did in fact speak to Miss X. So no data breach happened in this call. Miss X’s concern about what might have happened if the call had gone through to the wrong person is speculative and not significant enough to warrant to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing this point. If any data breach had happened, that would have been more properly a matter for the Information Commissioner, who deals with data protection, than for the Ombudsman.
9. The Council accepts it delayed unreasonably dealing with Miss X’s complaint. It apologised, said it would raise this with the relevant managers and offered Miss X £200. Miss X says it would be more fitting for the Council to rehouse her so she would no longer have to deal with the housing manager she complained about. That would be disproportionate in the circumstances. Even if we were to investigate the complaint, it is unlikely we would recommend more than the Council has done. Also, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint-handling, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
10. Miss X’s claim the matter damaged her mental health is really a personal injury claim. The courts could consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 3 above applies. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. The cause of, and liability for, such injuries are not legally straightforward. It is more suitable for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide such matters. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to take court action if she wants a decision on this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman