Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s language barrier as there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council was discriminatory and did not provide adequate support to ensure she understood the social housing bidding process due to her language barrier. As a result, she and her husband (Mr X) were unsuccessfully bidding for over 7 years, despite being a high priority.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says the Council did not make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to accommodate for her difficulty understanding English. Councils have a legal responsibility to consider requests for reasonable adjustments related to disabilities. However, language barriers are not legally a disability. Mr X is the main applicant, and we have not seen any evidence of Mr X telling the Council that he could not understand the information in English about the bidding system. The Council offers telephone interpretation but there is no sign Mrs X requested this. We could not reach a clear enough view if Mr/Mrs X made it known they could not sufficiently understand the bidding system during their visits. So, there is not enough evidence to say there was any fault in the Council’s action for this part of the complaint.
7. Mrs X says the Council was discriminatory during the bidding process. The Council shortlisted and invited Mr and Mrs X to multiple viewings. Mr and Mrs X failed to provide required documentation on time, and so were unsuccessful in their bids. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the Council if they require extra support with providing the documentation. The Council previously communicated with Mr X, so it was reasonable to assume Mr X could understand basic English. The Council was made aware of the language barrier once it was highlighted in the complaint procedure. Mr and Mrs X are now aware they can bid for up to six properties, not just one, in each cycle. So, there is nothing more we can achieve on this matter.
8. Mrs X highlighted the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs in her complaint to the Council. The Council referred this to the private rented sector team in its stage two response. Mrs X should make a new complaint to the Council should she wish to complain about the Council’s lack of action towards the disrepair in her private rented accommodation. So, we will not investigate this point as explained in paragraph 3.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions regarding bidding for social housing. The point about the Council's handling of disrepair in Mrs X's current home has not completed the Council's complaint procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman