Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled the complainant’s housing application and her complaint. This is because part of the complaint to us is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision on her recent complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs A, complained about how the Council handled her housing application and her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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, 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))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. Mrs A 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

8. Mrs A told us her household is overcrowded and she has had no help from the Council with her housing application. She told us she lives in a two-bedroom flat with her husband and four children. Mrs A said she submitted her housing application for reassessment in January 2021 on medical grounds. She said there was an error on the system when trying to complete this. She told us the Council completed her application in November 2021 and questioned why there was such a delay. She said the Council delayed replying to her emails and it has not considered all the medical information she has provided. She wants the Council to award her application band 1 priority and for it to rehouse her as soon as possible.
9. The Council considered Mrs A’s complaint. It said due to significant demand for social housing, there may be delay in considering information provided. It considered its housing policy and considered the number of people in the property. It awarded band 2 priority for overcrowding and space hazard. The Council said it considered all information previously provided by Mrs A when making its decision including the medical information. But it said she does not meet its criteria for band 1 priority. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. It awarded a six month back date to the banding to account for the impact the overcrowding is having on Mrs A and her family with an effective date of November 2020. This will give her more priority.
10. Mrs A questioned why the Council awarded band 3 priority in 2015 instead of band 2 despite her situation being the same. The Council said Mrs A’s husband was not verified as living at the address until 2021 so she did not meet its band 2 criteria in 2015. We cannot investigate complaints received outside the normal 12-month period unless we decide there are good reasons. If Mrs A did not agree with the banding award in 2015 she could have complained to us sooner. I have not seen good reasons why she did not complain to us about this issue until 2022.
11. We cannot question a council’s decision simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was any fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because it applied its housing policy when making its decision on banding. This is what we would expect it to do. There was a significant delay by the Council in reassessing Mrs A’s application banding. But other applicants would also have been affected by this delay. There is no indication that the Council’s delay has meant Mrs A could have made a successful bid sooner. So there is not enough justification for us to call on the Council to provide the outcome Mrs A is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint because part of her complaint is late and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the way it reached its decision on her recent complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman