London Borough of Southwark (22 001 143)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 10 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled the complainant’s housing application change of circumstances form and its complaints procedure. This is because the complainant has not been caused significant enough injustice because of the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about how the Council handled his housing application change of circumstances form and their complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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:
  • any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
  • we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
  • further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
  3. Mr X has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr X told us he submitted a change of circumstances form for his housing application in September 2021. This was for medical reasons. Mr X told us he has had to resend information and made many calls to the Council to get an update on the progress of his application. Mr X told us he complained to the Council in January 2022 and the Council advised him documents were missing from his application. Mr X questioned why the Council did not ask him for this information sooner and why it has taken seven months to process his form despite him sending the documents.
  2. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in dealing with his case. It said it completed the medical assessment in February 2022. The Council confirmed the Band 4 status of his application and decided there was no medical requirement for a move. Mr X said the Council’s delay has caused him unnecessary stress and anxiety. He told us he is also not happy with how the Council handled his complaint. He wants the Council to acknowledge it has dealt with this matter wrongly and to provide compensation.
  3. We must consider whether Mr X has suffered significant enough injustice to justify investigating his complaint. In this case, whilst I understand Mr X has spent time and trouble trying to find out what has happened with his application, the injustice he has suffered is not significant enough for us to call on the Council to provide a financial remedy. That is because the Council did not change the banding of his application so there is nothing to suggest Mr X would have been successful in getting a move but for the Council’s fault. Our general approach to remedies is they should put the person affected back in the position they would have been in had nothing gone wrong. That is the approach the Council has taken. It has apologised for the delay and completed the medical assessment. We would only normally suggest a financial remedy if there has been fault in the way the Council considered the complaint, which meant the complainant incurred time and trouble above what is considered usual. This is not the case here. We would not obtain a significantly different outcome for Mr X if we investigated his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused significant enough injustice because of the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings