Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to appropriately provide for the complainant’s housing needs and treated her unfairly. This is because the first part of the complaint is late and in the remaining part it is unlikely we would find the Council to be at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss A, says that she was unfairly treated by the Council. Since 2010 she has been on the Housing Register (HR) for a permanent housing and in the meantime several times had to change her accommodation. The most recent direct offer made by the Council was unsuitable and was mishandled.

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. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss A and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss A has been on the HR since 2010. She requires a 4-bedroom property. The Council has no housing stock and is reliant on partner landlords and housing associations. In view of the lack of available properties for a permanent rent, Miss A has been living in temporary accommodations. At the same time she was expected to place bids for the permanent 4-bedroom properties which would become available.
7. Miss A says that she has been unfairly treated by the Council because since 2010 she has been living in temporary accommodations, unlike all the other residents on the HR who were offered permanent housing. Her temporary accommodation was often not satisfactory and she had to endure frequent changes.
8. We cannot consider complaints made more than 12 months after the date when the complainant knew about the issue unless there are good reasons to do so. I cannot see any good reasons to consider Miss A’s concerns about the quality of housing and the housing allocation process which happened more than 12 months before she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She knew and should have raised any issues with the Council at the time. Additionally, it would be extremely difficult to carry out a fair investigation regarding historic events and processes.
9. The main trigger for Miss A’s complaint was a direct offer of a permanent accommodation made in June 2021. Miss A considered this offer unsuitable because of the property location.
10. I cannot find any fault in the way the Council made the direct offer to Miss A. The Council advised on the process following the direct offer in accordance with its Housing Allocation Scheme, including timescales for requesting a review. Miss A’s request for a review was significantly delayed and no specific reasons for the delay were provided.
11. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation of this part of the complaint. The Council has explained details of the process to Miss A and applied its allocation policy appropriately.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss A’s complaint. This is because the first part of it is very late and for the remaining part we are unlikely to find the Council to be at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman