Summary: Mr D complains the Council has placed him in the wrong housing allocation band. He also says it has accused him of being a paedophile and Councillors used derogatory wording about his mental health. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation. There is one fault by the Council but it did not result in a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) refers to a number of issues in his complaint:
• The Council has placed him in the wrong housing allocations band;
• The Council has referred to Mr D as being a paedophile;
• Councillors used derogatory wording to describe Mr D’s mental health;
• Housing disrepair issues and data protection breaches and housing problems dating back to 2016 or earlier.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I am looking at:
• the Council’s banding decision in 2019;
• the allegation about the Council referring to Mr D as a paedophile because although this was lodged in 2018 the Council continued to respond to complaints about it in 2019;
• the Councillor’s email in 2019 referring to Mr D’s mental health.
3. I explain below why I am not looking at the other parts of Mr D’s complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate complaints which are within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, that includes housing disrepair complaints which are for the Housing Ombudsman Service to consider.
7. 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)
8. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council questions and have carefully considered its response.
10. I have shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

11. In September 2018 the Council wrote to Mr D in response to his complaint that Officers/ Councillors had stated he was a paedophile. The Council said this was a misunderstanding which seemed to stem from a letter provided by Mr D stating he caused parents concern by offering gifts to children. The Council said it had never referred to Mr D as a paedophile and he had provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation. Mr D continued to complain, and the Council repeated its view in October 2018 and in October 2019.
12. In May 2019 the Council notified Mr D he had been placed in band four of the housing allocation scheme. This was due to ongoing rent arrears. Mr D appealed and the Council sent its appeal decision on 9 August. It set out in detail why it did not uphold the appeal. The Council said its medical assessor had looked at whether Mr D had medical priority, but he did not. In addition, the type of tenancy held by an applicant (Mr D has a non-secure tenancy) is not a deciding factor when awarding housing priority. The Council told Mr D it had considered whether he should receive any exceptional housing need because of his health conditions but found no basis to do so. There was no direct link between his health and the rent arrears.
13. On 27 September a Councillor sent an email to his colleagues and accidentally copied it to Mr D. In the email he said, “the monitoring officer has been involved [with Mr D’s] mental health issues”. Mr D complained to the Council stating the wording was derogatory and the Council should have used “mental health condition” instead. On 16 October the Council wrote to Mr D and apologised for the error in sending him the email. It stated no offence was intended.

What should have happened

14. People on the Council’s housing allocation register are placed into bands. These bands reflect their housing need and priority with band one being the most urgent.
15. The Council keeps housing allocation applications under review. If there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances the Council can revise the banding and should notify the applicant. One ground for lowering an applicant’s banding is where they have ongoing rent arrears. An applicant can appeal the decision.

Was there fault by the Council

16. There is one accepted instance of fault by the Council. It acknowledges to Mr D that an email was incorrectly copied to him in September 2019.
17. I have not seen evidence of any other fault by the Council.
18. Mr D says he is in the wrong housing band. It for the Council to decide which band a housing applicant should be placed in. I have seen no evidence of fault by the Council. It fully considered Mr D’s appeal and explained that because of his increasing rent arrears it was correct to lower his banding. I appreciate that Mr D does not agree with the decision, but it is one the Council has a right to make. The Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decisions where there is no evidence of fault.
19. Mr D says Officers/ Councillors have referred to him as a paedophile. He has not provided any evidence to substantiate this allegation and the Council has explained this to him on several occasions. In the absence of any corroborating evidence I find no fault by the Council.
20. Mr D also says the reference to his “mental health issues” was insulting. He says the Council should have stated “mental health condition”. The Council has already accepted it was wrong to send the email to him and has apologised for any offence. I do not see I can add anything further to this point or that the comments made can viewed as unreasonable.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. I do not see the error in emailing Mr D in 2019 caused him a significant injustice. Furthermore, the Council has already offered its apologies to him.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have upheld the complaint, because of the one identified fault, and completed the investigation because there is no outstanding injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

23. I have not investigated Mr D’s complaints about matters dating back to 2016. That is because he could and should have complained to the Ombudsman sooner as explained above.
24. I have also not investigated Mr D’s complaints about housing disrepair or data protection as they are for other organisations to consider and I understand Mr D has already complained to the relevant bodies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman