Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. Some parts are late without good enough reason to investigate them now. The Council’s delay reassessing the application did not disadvantage Miss X in practical terms. The Council’s apology is enough remedy for the uncertainty during the delay. Miss X can reasonably ask the Council for a review if she wants to challenge its new decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her applications for higher priority on the housing register for medical reasons. She believes this might mean she and her family will remain longer than necessary in accommodation she considers unsuitable. Miss X wants the Council to reconsider and to increase her application’s priority.

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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Events before May 2023

7. Miss X was first dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her application in 2020. She completed the first two stages of the Council’s complaint procedure between December 2020 and May 2021. She then did not contact the Council about this matter for another two years, until May 2023. In July 2023 the Council sent its final complaint response. Miss X complained to us in May 2024.
8. The restriction in paragraph 2 applies to events before May 2023, as Miss X knew over three years ago her application had not received more priority. I have given some weight to Miss’s mental health problems, including depression, which might make someone take longer to complain. Nevertheless, as Miss X knew about this important matter some years ago, I consider she could reasonably have come to us much sooner. So I am not persuaded there is good enough reason to investigate these late matters now.

Events since May 2023

9. In June 2023 Miss X sent the Council new medical information and asked it again to increase her application’s priority. In July 2023 the Council said it would reassess the application and tell Miss X the result. In fact, the Council did nothing until September 2024, when we asked it for some information about Miss X’s complaint. On 26 September 2024 the Council sent Miss X a letter that: apologised for the delay; stated the Council had now considered the medical information but decided it did not warrant giving Miss X’s application more priority; and explained how Miss X could ask the Council to review this decision.
10. The delay in reassessing should not have happened. However, the eventual reassessment did not change Miss X’s priority. So the delay did not disadvantage Miss X in practical terms with rehousing. The Council’s apology is enough remedy for any avoidable uncertainty to Miss X during the delay.
11. The recent decision not to increase Miss X’s priority is a new matter since the complaint to us. So it is not appropriate for us to look at that yet. The law gives Miss X a review right, as the Council explained. If Miss X want to challenge the Council’s recent decision, she can reasonably use her review right.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Some parts are late without good enough reason to investigate them now. The Council’s delay reassessing the application did not disadvantage Miss X in practical terms. The Council’s apology is enough remedy for the uncertainty during the delay. Miss X can reasonably use her review right if she wants to challenge the Council’s new decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman