Summary: Ms X complains via a representative that the Council wrongly left her family in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than a year and wrongly blamed her for failing to co-operate in resolving her situation. The Council failed to refer the matter to its homelessness team, and it did not assess Ms X, or provide her with suitable accommodation while this should have been happening, nor give her a written decision and opportunity to appeal. We find it more likely than not, given the Council had sought to persuade the borough from which Ms X had moved that she was not intentionally homeless, it would have reached the same view if it had acted properly. This caused injustice to Ms X and her children in having to live in unsuitable accommodation for more than a year. However, had Ms X been intentionally homeless, the Council might have been able without fault to place the family in the same bed and breakfast accommodation under the terms of the Children Act 1989, subject only to regular review of the children’s needs. This Act does not have the same focus regarding accommodation as housing legislation. We have therefore issued this report because of the potential for conflict between housing and social care duties, which may lead to perverse outcomes for children in need in other cases.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a homelessness application he made and alleges the Council did not pursue his complaint about housing officers who met with him. There was fault by the Council because of a delay in assessing Mr X’s homelessness application. However, Mr X did not suffer a significant injustice because of the delay to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss M’s complaint against the Council about delays dealing with her requests for reviews of its decisions on her housing application. A letter failed to properly explain whether she was entitled to refuse 1 or 2 offers of accommodation. It also failed to give reasons why she did not qualify under the main allocation scheme. The actions the Council took, and the agreed action, remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly manage her homeless application resulting in delay in offering her suitable accommodation and the Council placing her out of the district. The Council accepts it made mistakes and offered a remedy. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and has agreed a remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to meet its obligations to him as a landlord under its tenancy deposit scheme. The Ombudsman has completed our investigation. There is fault by the Council. It should apologise to Mr X, pay him £150, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. This is because any minor fault in the way it reached its decision did not cause Mr B a significant injustice. We will also not investigate the Council’s refusal to add Mr B to his parents’ tenancy as we have no jurisdiction to consider this matter.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a claim to buy a Council home. This is because it would be reasonable to expect the complainants to use their right to go to court.

Summary: Miss N complains the Council failed to ask her questions about disability benefits, that were crucial in the award of a higher priority on its housing register. We uphold the complaint, as we find fault with the way the Council dealt with asking Miss N about adjustments she needed because of her disability. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: The Council failed to provide support to Miss Y as a care leaver, particularly with finding suitable accommodation, after it failed to recognise she was a looked after child between the ages of 16 and 18. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss Y it will apologise, revise its procedures, assess what support Miss Y should receive as a care leaver, and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by fault.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his request for homelessness assistance and his application for social housing. The Council’s failure to identify and accept Mr X’s contact in June, July or August 2019 as homelessness applications and make enquiries amounts to fault. As does the Council’s failure to provide Mr X with suitable interim accommodation which was immediately available. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

Summary: Mr B complains on behalf of his parents who live next to a property that he believes to be empty and in poor condition. We uphold the complaint finding the Council has not adequately considered whether the property is empty and so should engage its empty homes approach. It has also provided poor customer service at times. This has caused distress to Mr B’s parents and another neighbour who supports his complaint. It has also caused him unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement we set out the action it agrees to take to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her Right to Buy application. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it would be reasonable to expect Ms X to take the matter to court.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council refusing to extend her Right to Buy application in 2016. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before they complained to us.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her with suitable accommodation when she made a homelessness application. She says her well-being suffered because she spent too long in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman has found the Council took too long to rehouse her once it had decided her flat was unsuitable. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss X, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to her.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in its consideration of Mr B’s claim for legal fees. The Council then refused to pay a remedy previously agreed for delays in handling Mr B’s Right to Buy application. The Council has agreed the recommended remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y, that the Council delayed in accepting a homelessness application from him and failed to consider his medical records. She also complains that the Council failed to communicate with her and did not escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in failing to review Mr Y’s personalised housing plan and in failing to notify him that the prevention duty had ended. It also failed to communicate with Mrs X and escalate her complaint to stage 2. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y and make a payment.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging private landlords for taking part in a Council scheme to install central heating. This is because Mr X was not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council will not reimburse her for accommodation costs she paid for a homeless friend. It was Ms X’s choice to meet these costs and she is not therefore directly caused an injustice by the alleged Council fault.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council had not dealt with her homeless application, helped her as a victim of domestic violence or registered her on its allocation scheme.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has discriminated against her based on her race and religion. I have completed my investigation. The Council failed to have due regard to its duties under the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act. It should apologise to Miss X and pay her £150.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her request for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council took too long to complete the review and delayed in responding to her complaint. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a financial payment for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complains about how the Council handled her move with its Homestart Scheme and damage to her belongings during the move. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for not telling Ms X about the 7 day deadline to report damaged items, the time taken to progress the complaint with the removal contractor and for the standard of its complaint handling. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to let the complainant join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation and did not have due regard to its public sector equality duty. Mr D says because the accommodation was unsuitable, he found it difficult to leave his property. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not let him use its rent in advance and deposit scheme to rent out his property when taking on his latest tenant. Mr X says the Council has applied a blanket-ban for the use of his property on the scheme without explanation. The Ombudsman did not find fault with the actions of the Council.

Summary: Mr X, on behalf of his mother, complains the Council failed to take further enforcement regarding the installation of a handrail and failed to take action to remove a rat infestation. The Council has been unable to provide records to show it properly considered whether to take further enforcement action. This is fault. There is evidence action was taken in respect of the infestation.

Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council handled her application for emergency rehousing after she fled her home due to domestic violence. Miss X and her children suffered injustice due to fault by the Council and its failure to consider making a direct offer of accommodation. The Council has accepted our recommendations for a suitable remedy.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homeless application from 2018. She also complained about the failure to issue a final homeless decision. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate the matters before September 2019. This is because they took place outside the normal 12-month period for receiving complaints. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Miss X in the Council issuing its final homeless decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council withdrew an offer of housing because the complainant had council tax arrears. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Miss C’s complaint of the Council placing her in unsuitable out of borough accommodation. It took account of her personal circumstances before doing so and an independent medical advisor’s recommendation. When later deciding the property was unsuitable, it decided not to offer her an out of borough property because of the implications to her of her likely refusal. This was fault. She lost her the opportunity to make her own decision and challenge its suitability. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr X complains a Council officer wrongly told a colleague he was abusive in a telephone call. The Ombudsman will not investigate as he cannot change the outcome of the complaint and the injustice to Mr X is not sufficient to warrant his involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s claim for compensation for damage to his property which he says was caused by delay in the Council carrying out repairs to a water leak in his building. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take court action for the compensation he seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about disrepair in temporary accommodation which the complainant left in 2018. This is because it is a late complaint, the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants, and because the complainant could have used her review rights.

Summary: Since December 2016 the Council failed properly to consider the housing situation of a severely overcrowded family. The Council also failed to make adequate enquiries before deciding the children in the family were not in need. The Council has now carried out a proper housing assessment and rehoused the family. It will pay a financial remedy to the complainant for the delay.

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council has dealt with him since he became homeless. The Council was at fault for not assessing him for interim accommodation while it made enquiries and for not providing appropriate assistance in bidding for properties when Mr B was accepted on the housing register. This caused Mr B considerable distress and impacted on his physical and mental health issues as he had to sleep in his car until the Council made a suitable offer of accommodation. The Council has agreed to make a payment and apology to Mr B for the delay and distress caused and work with him to help him secure accommodation. The Council will also remind staff of the low threshold for an entitlement to interim accommodation where someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Summary: A housing applicant complained that the Council had unreasonably suspended her from bidding for accommodation on the basis she had refused two property offers. But the Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of this matter. This is because the Council has now retracted its bidding suspension in the woman’s case and is allowing her a further offer.

Summary: On the information available, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has wrongly assessed his priority for its social housing register. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault and any injustice caused by the Council’s delay is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains that he missed out on bidding for properties for about 11 weeks after the Council withdrew an offer of housing. It was fault for the Council to advertise the property as two-bedrooms when in fact it was a three-bedroom property, but it was entitled to withdraw the offer. Due to a change in computer systems, the Council is unable to provide detailed information about what happened in the period so Mr X is left not knowing if he would have been offered another property. As a result of this further fault, the Council should now offer Mr X the next available two bedroom house.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of two bids for properties she made in 2015. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction as the events happened too far in the past to be investigated now.

Summary: A homelessness applicant complained about the Council’s failure to carry out a review of its decision that she is not homeless. But the Ombudsman has no reason to start an investigation of this complaint. This is because the Council has now issued a review decision and the applicant is satisfied with that outcome.

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s application for a housing transfer.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had failed to take action to deal with serious hazards in her privately rented property. We cannot identify any fault in the way the Council dealt with the issues.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to issue a review decision on its homeless decision that he was not in priority need. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Council acted with fault in its response to Miss X’s complaint on needing to move home due to risk of domestic violence. It apologised and provided Miss X with a financial remedy to acknowledge its delays. It also improved its services to allow Council staff access to housing records to reduce the risk of perpetrators being accommodated near domestic violence survivors. The Council provided an adequate remedy before the Ombudsman investigated.

Summary: The complainant, Miss Y, says the Council delayed in re-housing her despite having an urgent medical and welfare need. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council because it took too long to review Miss Y’s application when she submitted notice of a change of circumstance. However, we are satisfied based on the information seen, Miss Y did not lose the opportunity to be re-housed during the period of delay. The fault did cause some injustice, in the form of time and trouble, which the Council will apologise for and make a payment of £200 to Miss Y.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not carry out adaptations she needed to meet her assessed needs and did not provide accommodation suitable to meet her needs. Ms X says she has suffered physically and mentally because of this situation. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to place him in a nursing home after his release from prison in 2018. The Ombudsman will not investigate this part of Mr Y’s complaint because he did not make a complaint within 12 months of the decision to place him there. However, the Council delayed in issuing invoices for Mr Y’s care charges and we find this caused some distress which it will apologise for. There is no evidence of fault in the complaint about the storage of Mr Y’s belongings.

Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not deal with Ms X’s request for medical points for her housing application in December 2018. The Council is currently reviewing its decision on Ms X’s medical application so it should consider an appropriate remedy for Ms X if it awards medical points following its review. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made direct offers of properties to Ms X.

Summary: Ms X complained the Estate Agent, working on behalf of the Council, incorrectly told her she could purchase a 25% share of a new build shared ownership home when the minimum share purchase price was 40%. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault. That has caused Ms X a financial loss through surveyor fees and caused her avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to reimburse Ms X’s surveyor fees and pay her £150 to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council paying a rent credit into a council tax account. This is because the Ombudsman has no power to investigate a Council when it is acting as a landlord.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s failure to rehouse her for the past two years despite her property being in serious disrepair and her family’s multiple special needs. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Council is at fault for the way it conducted medical assessments for housing and its reviews of those decisions. It also failed to ask the Housing Management Panel to consider if Mr X should have social propriety for housing. The delay in properly considering Mr X’s application has caused him injustice. The Council will apologise to Mr X, properly assess his application and make a payment for his time and trouble.

Summary: There is fault in how the Council handled Miss B’s housing situation. Its file recordings were not always accurate, it took too long to agree a personal housing plan, and gave her incorrect information. The Council caused Miss B uncertainty and distress, and cannot say whether it would have offered her housing sooner had it acted without fault. The Council has agreed it will apologise to Miss B, pay her £250 in recognition of the distress it has caused her, and share this decision with its staff.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing the complainant with alternative accommodation. This is because the complainant moved to a new home last month.

Summary: Mr X complains that his current property is overcrowded causing stress to him and his family. The information provided shows Mr X is in the correct priority band. The Council did place Mr X in a higher band in error in February 2020 but this has been rectified and it did not cause a significant disadvantage to him. The Council should provide Mr X with a written apology for this fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to share what it knew about two individuals it housed in a property he managed. The Council knew about the tenants’ history of anti-social behaviour. It disclosed some information but failed to disclose information that might have dissuaded Mr X from accepting the tenants. Mr X would not have accepted the tenants if he had known. Mr X experienced prolonged anti-social behaviour from the tenants and had to take legal action to evict them. The Council will apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice to him and his family. It will also review its policies about the use of private sector rented accommodation, and for tackling anti-social behaviour.

Summary: Mr C complains about various issues relating to his temporary accommodation. Mr C says he lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and did not receive the support he needed which was harmful to his mental and physical health The Ombudsman found fault by the Council but considered the actions it had already taken of an apology and payment were enough with the agreed actions of improvements to its procedures and staff training provided a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complains the temporary accommodation she is living in is unsuitable due to being overcrowded and in a state of disrepair. The Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable in June 2019 due to overcrowding but has failed to provide alternative accommodation which is fault. It has also delayed in carrying out repairs at the property.

Summary: A representative complains for Ms C that the Council failed to deal correctly with her application for housing. The Ombudsman finds there were several faults by the Council in this matter leading to injustice for Ms C, for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused to house his family and failed to issue a formal decision not to house them. The Ombudsman upholds part of Mr X’s complaint. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to house the family, but the Council failed to issue a formal decision or advise Mr X of his review rights. It will now do so.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr K’s complaint the Council has wrongly and unfairly refused to communicate with him because it concerns the Council’s actions as a registered social landlord.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s late complaint that the Council withdrew offers of housing it made under its allocation policy in 2018. The matters Mr X complains about occurred in 2018 and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept the complaint now.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not properly assess his housing needs when he was threatened with homelessness and later became homeless. We found fault in the Council’s housing assessment and in the way it carried out the homelessness prevention and relief duties. These faults caused injustice to Mr X. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the lost opportunity to challenge its decisions. It will also invite him to an interview to assess his current housing needs and then decide what further duties, if any, it owes him.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority date on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application since September 2018. On the evidence available we find fault by the Council which may have affected Mr B’s chances of finding suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to invite a fresh homeless application from Mr B and pay him £500.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s housing allocations scheme and its decision not to award her housing priority. The Ombudsman found no fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s housing priority. The Ombudsman found fault in the way the Council communicated its decisions. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to say whether Council policy is unlawful or discriminatory. These are matters for the Courts.

Summary: Miss C complains about the Council's decision that she is not eligible to join its housing register. Miss C says she cannot bid for more affordable accommodation and has spent unnecessary time and trouble in dealing with the issue. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in the way it applied criteria which were not included in its published scheme. The Ombudsman considers the agreed action of the Council amending its published policy to include the criteria with an apology and payment to Miss C is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the poor state of her former council tenancy which she vacated in 2015. She also complained about being removed from the housing transfer register in 2019 and failure to deal with anti-social behaviour since June 2019. The Ombudsman cannot investigate some parts this complaint. This is because it concerns the actions of a social housing landlord which are outside our jurisdiction. We can consider the Council’s decisions on her housing application, but we will not exercise discretion to do so because they concern matters which took place more than 12 months before we received the complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into Ms X complaint about the Council’s decision not to take a homeless application from her. This is because the Council has now taken a homeless application from Ms X and agreed to update policies and procedures.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council failing to secure her protected Right to Buy when she transferred to a housing association tenancy in 2009. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns tenancy matters between a social housing landlord and their tenant and is outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: Miss X complains that a housing officer pressurised her to accept an offer of social housing which she considered unsuitable for her needs. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s housing application. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complains, on behalf of Miss Y, that the Council wrongly required Miss Y to clear rent arrears for temporary accommodation before it would let her bid for social housing. We have discontinued the investigation because the dispute about whether Miss Y was a joint tenant of the temporary accommodation, and therefore jointly and severally liable for the rent arrears, is a matter for the courts to decide.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council re-housing tenants whom it had placed with her private rented accommodation. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly assessed her priority under its letting policy. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s housing application. This is because the Council has offered a fair remedy and there is not enough remaining injustice to require an investigation.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council wrongly withdrew an offer of a property. She says the property was suitable for her needs and that she had started to plan for the move and had disposed of some possessions. T

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council offered her unsuitable temporary accommodation outside London. We have discontinued the investigation as it was reasonable to expect her to use her legal right to challenge the suitability of the accommodation in court.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s allocations policy. I have discontinued my investigation. The Ombudsman considers there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation.

Summary: There is fault by the Council because it failed to identify and deal with Mr X’s request for a review of the suitability of his accommodation. The Council also failed to follow up repairs’ issues with its managing agent in a timely manner. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice described at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mr X complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with his homelessness situation and a housing provider’s decision not to accept any nominations for him for its properties. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so has completed his investigation.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not consider medical evidence he provided when deciding his priority for social housing. He also says the Council delayed carrying out a medical assessment. The Council is at fault for failing to consider Mr X’s medical evidence during an assessment. This meant the Council awarded Mr X his medical priority points five weeks late. To remedy this, the Council has changed Mr X’s medical priority date.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the problems she is experiencing in her temporary accommodation. This is because another local authority is best placed to consider the matter.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council making unreasonable threats about action for unlawful eviction of her tenants. She also complained about disclosure of personal information to a work colleague. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It was reasonable for Miss X to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner which is the proper authority to investigate matters concerning data breaches.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s lack of action in response to her complaints about her neighbours’ behaviour, the banding of her housing application and the Council’s handling of its direct housing offer. This is because we cannot investigate the Council’s actions in its role as a social housing landlord and the Council took appropriate action when it confirmed Mrs B’s accommodation did not have two double bedrooms.

Summary: Mrs A complained about Council’s lack of enforcement action when she reported her neighbour is blocking her shared drive on Council owned land. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because this is a matter for the courts and it is out of time.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council will only allow her to apply for one-bedroom properties on its housing list. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with how the Council made its decision.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application and the banding which she has been given. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.