Summary: We have decided not to investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Ms X’s housing register application. The Council has upheld the complaint and agreed to apologise to Ms X for an initial delay and failure to respond to her communications. It will also make a payment to remedy the frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• failed to assess her housing register application because it said she had not provided relevant evidence, although she says she did send evidence as soon as it told her what it needed;
• failed to respond to her communications about the application;
• delayed in responding to her complaint; and
• failed to provide a copy if her records after she made a subject access request.
2. Ms X says the failures mean she remains in unsuitable housing with her child, who has complex needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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)
4. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information or subject access requests, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Ms X made a housing register application in March 2024. The Council contacted her later that month to set out the evidence she needed to provide. Ms X provided identity evidence in late March.
9. Ms X sent a number of emails and tried to call the Council about her application in March and April but did not get a response. Also in April social worker also contacted the housing team but did not get a response. In its stage 2 complaint response, the Council acknowledged Ms X and her social worker had had to chase matters.
10. In May, Ms X complained, and the Council responded. It said it had not received all the information it needed to assess Ms X’s application. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked it to consider it at stage 2 of the complaints process. She provided a chronology setting out the times she had tried to contact the Council but not had a response.
11. In June the Council sent a list of further evidence it needed Ms X to provide. She provided some of the documents the same day. In early July, the Council responded to the complaint at stage 2. It acknowledged Ms X had had to chase it initially. In mid July, the Council wrote again with the same list of documents, some of which were crossed through to show what it had received and what was still needed. Ms X sent some more documents the same day. In July the Council sent another letter with the same list, setting out what it had received and what was still needed. In its response to our request for relevant records in September 2024, the Council said it had not had all the evidence it asked for so was not yet able to complete its assessment of Ms X’s housing register application.

My assessment

12. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for an initial delay in considering the documents Ms X provided in March 2024 and clarifying what further evidence it needed, and for failing to respond to her communications between March and mid June 2024. This caused a delay in assessing the application and some frustration to Ms X.
13. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused. It has agreed to apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on effective apologies) and pay her £100. It will take these steps within one month of the date of this decision.
14. The Council has not been able to complete its assessment of the application because Ms X has not yet sent it all the evidence it asked for. It has written to Ms X to set out clearly what evidence it has received and what is still outstanding.
15. There was no significant delay in the complaint responses.
16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her subject access request. It is appropriate for Ms X to refer her concerns about this to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X. We will not investigate the complaint about the subject access request because there is another body better placed to consider that.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman