Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay in the Council responding to a question he asked. He says the Council took five months to respond. He also complains the Council deleted his messages and claimed he never asked the question. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in responding to a question he asked about whether having a history of a disease in his family would be a consideration for priority on his housing application. He says the Council took five months to answer. He also complains the Council deleted his messages and claimed he never asked the question.

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 we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In March 2023, Mr X sent the Council a web message asking whether having a family history of a disease would be consideration for priority on his housing application. He said the Council responded by asking him to send his medical records. Mr X said he took this to believe he could have a better chance with his bids if he could provide proof of his family’s medical history.
6. Mr X submitted a medical form in April 2023. In June 2023, the Council told Mr X that it was seeking further information from his doctor.
7. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed that a family history of a condition would not warrant additional priority itself. However, it said officers had assumed Mr X had additional health concerns which he wanted considered due to the way he framed his question. The Council said as Mr X returned a medical form, it made enquiries with his doctor to ensure his application was assessed using all relevant information.
8. I recognise the delay in the Council responding to Mr X’s will have caused some frustration. I also recognise the Council raised Mr X’s expectation by not providing a clear answer at the outset. However, it is the case that having a family history of a disease would not warrant additional priority. Therefore, the delay has not caused any detrimental impact on Mr X’s housing application or his priority with bids. For this reason, an investigation is not justified.
9. Further, Mr X complains about the Council deleting his question and about its handling of his personal data. These complaints are better dealt with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is because the ICO can consider complaints about data handling, including allegations of information being deleted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman