Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s housing application. The complaint about waiting time priority is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about the matter. There is no fault so far in the Council not moving Mrs X’s application to a different list. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling and communication in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains for Mrs X. He complains the Council wrongly removed seven years’ waiting time priority from Mrs X’s housing application due to rent arrears, without properly considering the exceptional circumstances that caused the arrears. Mr Y says this means the family has remained longer than necessary in overcrowded housing that does not meet their medical needs.

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. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Effective date of housing application

6. A housing application’s ‘effective date’ is relevant when ranking applicants who otherwise have the same priority. Mrs X’s first housing register application had an effective date of 2006. In 2013 Mrs X accepted a move the Council offered. Under the Council’s scheme at the time, Mrs X could move, reapply to the housing register and keep her 2006 effective date. Mrs X says she believed until recently that had happened when she reapplied in 2013.
7. However, soon after Mrs X’s move in 2013, she had some rent arrears. Mrs X states these stemmed from unusual circumstances, mostly related to the financial impact of an emergency at the new property. Mrs X cleared the arrears within a couple of months. The Council says the arrears meant it treated the reapplication as a completely new application, without the right to keep the previous waiting time priority. Therefore in 2013 it gave the new application an effective date in 2013, not 2006.
8. This complaint is therefore mainly about a decision in 2013, so I have considered whether the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. The restriction applies to complaints made to us more than 12 months after the person affected ‘first had notice of the matter.’ So, in deciding whether this restriction applies, a key question is when Mrs X first had notice that her application’s effective date was 2013, not 2006. Mrs X says the Council had honoured the 2006 date until recently, so she only had notice earlier in 2023 that the Council was using an effective date in 2013. However, I have not seen evidence of the Council telling Mrs X within the last 12 months, or a slightly longer period, that her application had an effective date of 2006. The Council told me the online housing system in 2013, and from some years after, displayed the effective date when applicants logged in to bid for properties and after placing a bid. So, the Council says the information that the effective date was 2013, not 2006, would have been available to Mrs X when she bid for properties between 2013 and 2018.
9. On balance, I consider it likely the Council changed the effective date when it created the current application in 2013, rather than more recently. So, from what the Council says, that information would have been available to Mrs X from 2013 when she used the bidding system. Therefore, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mrs X ‘had notice’ years before she complained to us that the effective date was 2013. Mrs X only knew the Council’s stated reasons for the change more recently. However, that is not the key point here. The key point is that Mrs X reasonably had notice well over 12 months before the complaint to us that the effective date was 2013, not 2006. Even if Mrs X might only have enquired about the implications more recently, that in itself is not good enough reason to accept the complaint late.
10. Also, we cannot realistically expect to reach a clear enough view now about whether the Council’s decision in 2013 properly considered any discretion the Council might have had about whether the rent arrears resulted from exceptional circumstances such that it should let Mrs X keep the 2006 effective date. That point, not the Council’s comments about the matter in 2023, is key to whether Mrs X might have missed a property offer between 2013 and now. We could not reasonably expect to extrapolate back from whatever the Council says, or might say, now, to decide whether the Council properly considered this in 2013.
11. The Council said this year that it believed the effective date was correct. That is secondary to the main relevant decision in 2013 and is not in itself an independent, separate decision that the Ombudsman should investigate now.

The list the application is on and types of property available

12. The Council has more than one housing list for applicants. The list Mrs X is on means she can only bid for properties in higher-rise blocks. Mrs X says that does not meet her family’s needs, especially one child’s medical needs. The Council said it will consider this further if it receives relevant medical information. In the circumstances, I see no fault in the Council having Mrs X’s application on the list where it has been since before she indicated any possible medical need. The Council is willing to reconsider this if it receives appropriate evidence.
13. If Mrs X were to provide medical evidence and be dissatisfied with the Council’s resulting decision about which list her application is on, that would be a new matter she should complain about to the Council before bringing to the Ombudsman.

Council’s communications

14. Mr Y is also dissatisfied with how the Council has communicated about the matter and dealt with the complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about communications or complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The complaint about waiting time priority is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. It is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about the matter. There is no fault to date in the Council not moving Mrs X’s application to a different list. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s complaint-handling and communication in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman