Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his mental health conditions when deciding his priority for housing allocation and that it delayed in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman will not consider Mr X’s complaint about his priority banding further because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate now. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to consider his mental health conditions when deciding his priority for housing allocation. He also says it delayed in responding to his Stage 2 complaint. Mr X says the Council’s decision not to place him in priority banding means he is staying in unsuitable accommodation which is negatively affecting his physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

Priority Banding

5. Mr X lives in a shared property. He says his accommodation is too small and poorly ventilated. He also says his neighbours are unsuitable and the police have been involved in incidents at the property.
6. Mr X applied to the Council to be moved to a more suitable property in October 2017. He made the request because the housing was affecting his mental health. The Council responded to his application in April 2018. The Council said Mr X did not meet the requirements for priority banding on medical grounds.
7. Mr X continued to speak to the Council about his banding and provided more information. Mr X did not complain to the Council or ask for a banding review until November 2019.
8. The law says complaints to the Ombudsman should normally be made within 12 months. We have discretion to set aside this rule where we decide there are good reasons. In this case I have decided not to exercise discretion to accept this late complaint for the following reasons:
• The 12-month period begins on the day the person became aware of the matter. Mr X received the Council’s decision not to award him priority banding in April 2018. It is reasonable to expect him to have sought a banding review at that time and complained to the Ombudsman when he was dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
• Mr X has not provided a good reason why he did not complain sooner.

Stage 2 Complaint

9. Mr X says the Council took three months to deal with his Stage 2 complaint. He says this was an unreasonable delay.
10. 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 propose not to investigate the Council’s decision on Mr X’s banding, and so we should not investigate the Council’s complaint-handling alone.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s complaint about the priority banding is late. It is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman