Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about his housing priority banding. The decisions Mr D complains about were made in 2016 and the complaint is therefore late. And the Council has invited Mr D to provide new information if his situation has changed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr D, says the Council should have placed him in priority Band A for housing in 2016 because he is living in overcrowded accommodation with Category 1 hazards under the housing health and safety rating system. Mr D says if the Council had placed him in Band A, he would have been rehoused by now. Mr D says he is in priority Band C and despite being on the housing register since 2011 he has never been invited to view a property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr D provided and the complaint correspondence between Mr D and the Council. I sent a draft decision to Mr D and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr D wants the Council to change his housing priority band to A and to backdate this award to 2016. If this does not secure a property, Mr D wants the Council to make a direct offer of housing to him and provide compensation.
6. While Mr D does not agree that he has been placed in the correct priority band, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council decided to place Mr D in priority band C in 2016. The Council also decided not to award Mr D medical priority in 2016. The decisions Mr D complains about were therefore made more than 12 months ago and the complaint is late.
7. The Ombudsman has discretion to investigate late complaints, but I do not consider it is reasonable to exercise discretion in this case. This is because Mr D requested a review of his medical priority in 2016 and the Council carried out a review. Mr D could have complained to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied once the review was complete.
8. The Council’s response to Mr D’s complaint explains it also provided him with information on requesting a review of the banding decision in 2016, but Mr D did not request a review. Mr D says he was not told he could request a review.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because if Mr D remained dissatisfied with the banding decision, he could have complained to the Ombudsman sooner, even if the Council had not provided him with information on how to request a review of its decision.
10. The Council has told Mr D it will review his housing priority if his circumstances have changed and he can provide medical reports or environmental health reports regarding the current condition of his property. If Mr D does provide the new information and the Council makes a new decision (or confirms his banding remains the same), he can request a review of that decision and then approach the Ombudsman with a new complaint if he remains dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and now investigate.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman