Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. Some of it is late without good reason to investigate now. It would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her review right on decisions about her application’s priority. The Council advised Miss X what to do if she wants more housing priority due to homelessness. It would be disproportionate to investigate a telephone conversation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not properly dealt with her housing application. She says this means her application has too little priority and she cannot remain at her property, so she is living with relatives, which strains family relationships.

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. 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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says her complaint includes matters over the last three years. She came to the Ombudsman in May 2023, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to events before May 2022. That includes decisions before then about Miss x’s application’s priority banding and a decision in December 2021 that she did not meet the local connection rules for some properties. Miss X would reasonably have known at the time she was dissatisfied with the Council’s position. I recognise Miss X has mental health problems and she told the Council she had to deal with the effects of a fire that damaged her belongings. Nevertheless, I consider Miss X could reasonably have complained sooner about events dating back several years. We shall not now investigate events before May 2022.
7. A housing applicant can ask the Council to review a decision about their application’s priority. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)(c)) As the law provides that right, we normally expect applicants to use it before coming to us. In the period I am considering, I understand Miss X asked the Council about her priority in mid-2022. The Council said what evidence it would need to increase her banding. Miss X provided some information. The Council decided the evidence did not warrant giving Miss X more priority. It states it told Miss X how to seek a review of that decision, but Miss X did not seek a review. Miss X remains dissatisfied with her priority banding. She says the Council has not taken full account of her circumstances, including a housing needs assessment.
8. If Miss X believed the Council had not considered her priority properly, she could reasonably have sought a review of the relevant decision(s) before coming to the Ombudsman. She still has the right to ask the Council to consider any relevant evidence (including a housing needs report) and, if dissatisfied with the Council’s decision, to seek a review. As Miss X has not used her review right, I do not propose to investigate this point currently.
9. One reason Miss X is dissatisfied with her application’s priority is that she says she cannot remain in her current property as it does not meet her disability needs and is not safe due to problems caused by other people. Someone can legally be homeless if it is not reasonable to continue to occupy their home. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3)) Depending on the circumstances, that can include reasons such as those Miss X describes. The Council will give Miss X more priority if it decides it owes her certain legal homelessness duties. The Council has advised Miss X how to approach its homelessness section if she wants it to consider those points. There was no fault in that advice. It is for Miss X to act on that advice if she wishes.
10. Miss X says a Council officer’s handling of a telephone conversation with her caused her some distress. The Council has apologised for any distress. In the circumstances, it would be disproportionate to devote time and public money to investigating what happened in this conversation, when we are not investigating the underlying substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Some of it is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her review right regarding decisions about her banding. The Council correctly advised Miss X how to proceed with the homelessness point if she wants more housing priority for that reason. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s handling of a telephone conversation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman