Summary: A woman complained about the Council’s failure to rehouse her family despite their serious overcrowding, and about the way it dealt with her case when she had to flee her home due to domestic abuse. But we will not investigate these matters. This is because the woman has complained late about events after she fled her home. In addition there is no sign that any fault in the Council’s handling of the woman’s housing application and complaint caused her an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained about the Council’s failure so far to rehouse her family despite their badly overcrowded living conditions. She was also unhappy that some years ago the Council told her to return to her social housing property after she had moved to temporary accommodation to escape domestic abuse. In addition, Miss B complained that she unreasonably incurred rent arrears for her property because the Council only paid housing benefit (HB) for her temporary accommodation, and she was unreasonably overlooked for rehousing because of these arrears.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 Miss B provided with her complaint. I also considered the comments Miss B’s representative made on her behalf in response to a draft of this decision. In addition I took account of the Council’s correspondence with Miss B concerning her complaint issues.

My assessment

5. However I have concluded that we should not investigate Miss B’s complaint.
6. First, I consider that the restriction on our jurisdiction to investigate late complaints, which I refer to in paragraph 3, applies to Miss B’s issues about what happened when she temporarily left her property because of domestic abuse.
7. The law says we should normally only consider complaints made to us in the permitted period, which is within 12 months of the time the complainant became aware of their issue with the authority. But I understand the events in question in Miss B’s case took place between 2016 and 2018.
8. I am also not convinced there are grounds for us to exercise discretion about applying the 12-month rule in Miss B’s case. In particular Miss B has not put forward any good reasons as to why she did not complain to us at the time if she had concerns about how the Council dealt with her domestic abuse issues, her liability for rent and her entitlement to HB in that period.
9. In addition, we may not question councils’ decisions unless there is fault in the way those decisions are made. As regards decisions about rehousing, we recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. So we may not find fault with a council for failing to rehouse someone in housing need if it has prioritised applicants, and allocated properties, in line with its published allocations policy.
10. Miss B is evidently in housing need because her family of three is living in a one-bedroom property. However I consider the Council has awarded her the appropriate banding priority under its Allocations Scheme to reflect her serious overcrowding. In addition, I have not seen any evidence so far to suggest that the Council has dealt with Miss B’s bids for properties unfairly or wrongly overlooked her for any offers of accommodation.
11. There are signs of some unreasonable delays and other fault by the Council in its responses to Miss B’s complaints under its complaints procedure. In particular I note the Council failed to provide a full response at stage two of its procedure, and took around three months to produce a final stage three response.
12. However I am not convinced that Miss B was caused a significant injustice because of the Council’s delays to warrant us pursuing this matter further. In particular I do not see we would find grounds to suggest the outcome of Miss B’s complaint would have been any different if the Council had responded sooner to her concerns. In the circumstances I consider the Council’s apology for its delays is a sufficient remedy regarding this part of Miss B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to rehouse her in the light of her serious overcrowding, and the way it dealt with her case after she fled her property due to domestic abuse. This is because Miss B complained late about the Council’s handling of her domestic abuse concerns and related rent and benefits issues. In addition, there is no sign of fault by the Council in its processing of Miss B’s application for rehousing or responses to her complaint which caused her an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman