Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. At our invitation, the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for failing to reply to some of Mr X’s emails. On other points of the complaint either there is no fault, or we could not achieve more than the Council is now offering to do.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council: gave his housing register application Band B priority when Mr X believes it should have had Band A; did not review the banding decision; and did not deal properly with his communications and complaint about the matter. He says this caused him to lose faith in the Council, it damaged his family life and affected his health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Council giving Mr X’s application Band B priority instead of Band A

8. In early 2023 the Council gave Mr X’s application Band B priority for being short of one bedroom, rather than Band A priority for being short of two bedrooms. This was based on the Council’s understanding that Mr X’s child, who lived with him half the time, was sleeping in a cot. It is not fault for the Council to consider a young child can sleep in a cot in the same room as a parent, for example, rather than requiring their own separate bedroom. The Council appears to have reached this decision properly, although Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. Investigation of this point is therefore unlikely to find fault by the Council.
9. The Council’s letter telling Mr X about its decision added, “When [the child] is no longer able to sleep in [their] cot and requires a bed then your circumstances and banding level will be reviewed - please notify us when this occurs.” The Council says Mr X did not come back to it about this.
10. Mr X’s complaint to us in August 2024 argued he should have higher priority, said his child still has to sleep in the cot despite being too old and mentioned some health and other matters. The Council says Mr X has not updated his housing application with those changes of circumstance and instead he completed a periodic online review form saying his circumstances had not changed. So the Council told us Mr X should update his online application with any changes of circumstance, information about his child’s sleeping arrangements, his medical condition and any employment information. The Council says it will then fully reassess Mr X’s application.
11. It is for the Council to reassess the application and decide how much priority to give it. So I cannot achieve more than the Council is suggesting on this point.

Council’s alleged failure to review the decision about Mr X’s priority

12. The Council’s letter telling Mr X he had Band B priority told Mr X he could ask for a review. Mr X then asked for a review.
13. The Council emailed Mr X on 19 May 2023. The Council told me that email was its review decision, although it accepts the email did not expressly state that. I have considered that email. It referred to the housing application and Mr X’s emails to the Council. It gave the Council’s reasons for being satisfied Band B was the correct band. Overall, the email covered much of the substance of what a review should do. So I accept the Council carried out the review. I appreciate Mr X did not agree with the review decision, but the Council properly reached that view, having regard to his circumstances and its policy. It would be disproportionate for me to ask the Council to do another review now of the February 2023 decision, especially as matters may have moved on since then.
14. The Council accepts it should have made this clear in the email. It states it will make this clear in future. I cannot reasonably expect to achieve significantly more than that.

Council’s handling of Mr X’s communications and complaint

15. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault. The Council accepts:
• it delayed replying in May and June 2023 to further emails from Mr X expressing dissatisfaction with his priority banding;
• it did not tell Mr X that it had treated his complaint in June 2023 as a service request, not a complaint;
• it did not reply to Mr X’s email of 26 July 2023 suggesting possible dates for a meeting he and the Council were considering having to discuss the application.
16. The Council seemingly did not realise it had failed to deal with those matters until summer 2024. The Council then apologised and offered Mr X £50, which he considered inadequate.
17. I agree the Council was at fault on those points. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration and effort raising the matter with the Council again in 2024. I have given some weight to Mr X’s seeming failure to pursue the matter for around a year. That mitigates, but does not completely remove, the impact of the Council’s faults, as the onus was also on the Council to progress matters. I do not consider £50 an adequate remedy in the circumstances.
18. I therefore asked to the Council to consider resolving the complaint early and remedying the injustice caused by its actions by paying Mr X £150 and reviewing what happened to avoid a repeat of the failures to reply properly to the communications in June and July 2023.

Mr X’s desire for compensation

19. Mr X says he wants compensation for the claimed impact of the Council’s actions on his family life and health. It is not our role to award compensation, and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal. The alleged effect on Mr X’s health is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Mr X could seek help with legal costs if he is eligible and/or he could ask the court for his costs if his action succeeds. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide these points. So it would be reasonable for Mr X to go to court for a decision about compensation.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will, within three months of today:
1. Pay Mr X £150; and
2. Review what happened in this case and identify any procedural changes necessary to avoid a repetition of the failures to reply properly to the communications in June and July 2023.

Back to top

Final decision

21. 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 Mr X and improving its service for others. We have not upheld other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman