Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delay processing her housing application, her housing register priority and housing disrepair. There was delay in processing her application but there is insufficient outstanding injustice for us to investigate, insufficient evidence of fault in the priority banding decision and the Housing Ombudsman is better placed to consider her complaint about property disrepair.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed processing her housing register application, given her the wrong priority banding and has not acted to re-house her following her complaints about damp and mould in her property. She says the matter has affected the family’s health and caused distress. She wants the Council to offer her a suitable property.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

• any outstanding 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X lives in social housing provided by the Council.
6. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had delayed processing her application for re-housing. It apologised to her for this. It said her application had now been verified and due to the delay, it had backdated her registration date to the date of her application. It said she had been placed in priority band three due to overcrowding in her current property.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has apologised to Ms X for the delay processing her re-housing application and backdated her registration date to the date of her application. These are appropriate actions to remedy the injustice caused. It has confirmed to us that the delay did not lead to her missing out on a suitable property as these were all offered to applicants with either an earlier registration date than Ms X or via a direct offer. There is insufficient outstanding injustice for us to investigate further.
8. The Council’s decision regarding her priority banding appears in line with its policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this decision to warrant an investigation.
9. We cannot consider Ms X’s complaint about damp and mould in her current property as she is a Council tenant, and the Council is a registered social landlord. The Housing Ombudsman is the appropriate body to consider a complaint about this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s priority banding decision, insufficient outstanding injustice and the Housing Ombudsman is better placed to consider a complaint about social housing disrepair.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman