Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with a man’s rehousing case since 2011. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and many of the issues are now too old for us to look into.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about various issues he raised with the Council after he received a copy of his housing application file in 2021. He says the documents show deceit, lies and manipulation of the facts by the Council, and that it ignored that his wife was a victim of crime.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also took account of Mr X’s comments and the documents he provided in response to a draft of this decision. In addition, I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X has been on the housing register since 2011 because his family needs a larger home. In 2021 Mr X made a Subject Access Request (SAR) for the personal information held on his housing file. He then complained about some of the documents he received and what he thought they said. He also said some information was missing.
5. For example, in 2010 Mr X’s wife encountered a burglar in their home; the burglar was convicted in 2011. In 2014 Mr X asked for a transfer and referred to the incident in 2010. The Council asked the police if they had records of any incidents since the conviction; the police said they did not. Mr X thought the documents showed the Council was denying the crime took place. In response the Council explained this was not what the documents said.
6. Mr X also complained that the Council tried to force him into private rented accommodation in 2014. The Council refuted this allegation. However, over the years it had explained to Mr X that he faces a very long wait for alternative social housing and may wish to consider other accommodation options.
7. Mr X has made too many complaints and allegations to note every point. But I have read his complaints to the Council, and the Council’s responses, and I have not seen anything else to suggest we could justify an investigation in his case.
8. First, the Information Commissioner's Office has been set up to consider complaints about how organisations handle personal information, including whether the organisation has responded properly to a SAR or holds inaccurate information about the person. In the circumstances I consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to go to the ICO to pursue any complaints he has against the Council about these matters.
9. Second, I consider there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in other respects to warrant our further involvement. For instance, I see nothing in the information provided to suggest the Council has lied or been deceitful or that it has failed to address any substantive issues in his complaint, as Mr X alleges.
10. The Council accepts it failed to respond, or delayed in responding, to some of Mr X’s correspondence over the years. But it has apologised for these lapses and I consider that is a suitable remedy for any injustice Mr X suffered in this regard.
11. In addition, many of the issues Mr X has referred to happened a long time ago and have little bearing on his current housing situation. In the circumstances it is highly unlikely we could carry out a meaningful investigation now about events which took place so many years ago and, therefore, we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants in these respects.
12. I appreciate Mr X has been waiting a long time for a larger home. But the Council has responded suitably by explaining the reasons for this and suggesting he consider other options. Meanwhile Mr X remains on the housing register.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman