Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr X’s housing benefit complaint. It is not a proportionate use of public funds to investigate complaint-handling in isolation, and the complaint is late in any event. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider his complaint about the Council’s response to an information request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing benefit complaint. His concerns included factual errors, his questions being ignored, delay and declining to disclose information he requested via a Subject Access Request.
2. Mr X said this delayed a suitable remedy being provided to him, causing him uncertainty and impacting his credit score. He said he went to inconvenience and suffered significant stress.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to apologise, disclose the information he requested, correct records, reconsider his housing benefit application, pay a financial remedy and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. We 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)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X told us his complaint is not about how the Council considered his housing benefit application, but instead solely about the way the Council handled his complaint about it. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. We will not investigate this complaint.
10. In any event, Mr X’s complaint relates to complaints correspondence from 2024. While Mr X indicates he attempted further communication with the Council following its final response of August 2024, that final response signposted him to the Ombudsman. He complained to us a little over 12 months later, in August 2025. The complaint is late, as the law says people must complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matter. There is not a good reason for the subsequent delay. Mr X contacted the Council during that time and could instead have contacted us.
11. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body that considers complaints about how organisations handle people’s data. Mr X’s complaint includes concerns about how the Council responded to his request for information under data protection legislation. The ICO is best placed to consider this. Mr X also says he seeks amendments to information the Council holds. It is open to him to submit a right to rectification request to the Council. The ICO is the body that would be best placed to consider this matter should it not be resolved via a request to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr’s complaint because it is not a proportionate use of public funds to investigate complaint-handling in isolation, the complaint is late and the ICO is best placed to consider his complaint about the Council’s response to an information request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman