Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application. The complaint about the first application is late without good reason to investigate it now. The Council properly reached its decision on the second application. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the time taken to decide the second application. The question of any Council responsibility for Mr X’s injury is properly for the courts, not the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal of his application to join the housing register. This means Mr X cannot get social housing from the Council. He says this will mean he will live longer in accommodation he considers unsuitable.

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.
3. 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)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the Council twice refused his housing register applications. The first application was in 2022, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. Mr X could reasonably have complained to us sooner about the Council refusing that application. Also, that application was overtaken by events as Mr X later made a fresh application. I do not see good reason to investigate the first application now.
9. I shall focus on the more recent application, from November 2023. The Council refused that application and upheld that refusal when it reviewed that decision. For the review, Mr X had put forward arguments that his housing was inadequate, details of his living conditions, medical information and information about his landlord serving notice to quit. The evidence from the Council’s review decision letter suggests the Council considered that information and sought advice from its medical adviser on some points. The Council decided it should uphold the decision to refuse the application. It gave reasons related to its policy and its understanding of Mr X’s circumstances. Therefore the Council’s decision appears properly reached. So, as paragraph 5 explained, we cannot criticise that decision, although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the decision.
10. Mr X’s most recent housing register application was on 30 November 2023. He waited until May 2024 for the Council’s first decision, then until August 2024 for the review decision. However, as the decision on the application was properly reached, it would be disproportionate for us to investigate the time taken.
11. At one time, after Mr X told the Council his landlord wanted him to leave, Mr X was concerned the Council might only deal with him in its homelessness system (which he did not want then) rather than dealing with his desire to join the housing register. However, the Council then reviewed the housing register matter. So the Council has not inappropriately insisted on only dealing with Mr X in the homelessness system.
12. Mr X says his medical condition resulted from an accident on a road for which the Council is responsible. He suggested he could therefore claim ‘housing liability’ against the Council. The courts can consider liability and appropriate compensation for personal injury. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide these matters. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court for a decision on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The complaint about the first application is late without good reason to investigate it now. The Council properly reached its decision on the second application. It would be disproportionate for us to investigate the time taken to decide the second application. The question of any Council responsibility for Mr X’s injury is properly for the courts, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman