Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now and it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on that part now. Miss X can ask the Information Commissioner whether the Council breached data rules. The Council has offered enough remedy for not telling Miss X she could bid for social housing.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council: did not account for documents she gave it in June 2021 to support her housing application; did not update her application in view of the information; and did not promptly enable her to resume bidding for housing after her suspended application was reinstated. Miss X says this prevented her bidding for housing, so she suspects she might have missed an opportunity to move. She also states it caused distress and has affected her health.

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 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X has been on the Council’s housing register for some years. She says in June 2021 she sent information about her and her child that she understood would increase her priority for housing. Miss X states the postal tracking service showed the Council received her documents, but she heard no more.

Suspected loss of Miss X’s documents

10. The Council says it does not know what happened to the documents, but believes it probably received them in June 2021 and disposed of them around two years later. Miss X argues the Council is at fault for not being able to account for the confidential documents she supplied.
11. Miss X knew in mid-2021 she had not heard back from the Council about this. She complained to us in September 2024. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to this point. I appreciate Miss X has had health and family matters to deal with. Nevertheless, on such an important matter, it is reasonable to expect Miss X should have acted quickly at the time and then complained to us much sooner. Miss X says she believed for a while some of the Council’s inaction was due to the aftermath of a cyber-attack the Council had suffered in October 2020. However, Miss X also says the Council did not deal with this matter ‘even when I knew the housing system was back up and running’. Miss X emailed the Council about this in June 2023, two years after sending the documents. Even then, Miss X took another 15 months to complain to us. Overall, Miss X could reasonably have complained to us much sooner about this point. I do not see good enough reason to investigate this late part of the complaint now.
12. Also, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now, on balance, about what happened to documents three years before the complaint to us.
13. If Miss X wants a ruling on whether the Council’s actions with the documents breached data protection rules, she can ask the Information Commissioner, who has the relevant expertise and power. That would be more appropriate than the Ombudsman seeking to decide this point, especially as we are not investigating other points about the Council’s handling of the documents.

Not updating Miss X’s housing register application

14. The information from Mis X should have led the Council to move Miss X’s application from Band C up to Band B and allow her to bid for two-bedroomed properties. However, that did not happen until October 2024. The Council has now updated the application and backdated to June 2021 Miss X’s entitlements to Band B and two-bedroomed properties. I shall deal below with the potential consequences of this.

Miss X not resuming bidding on the housing register 2021-2024

15. It is clear the Council suspended Miss X’s application for a while. The Council’s says it ended the suspension in October 2021 and Miss X would have been able to bid from then, but the Council accepts it did not tell Miss X she could bid until July 2024. Miss X suggests she got information from the Council after October 2021 indicating she still could not bid. On balance, it seems clear Miss X should have been able to bid from October 2021. However, Miss X did not bid, which was understandable because she did not know she could. The Council’s failure to advise Miss X properly was fault.
16. I have considered the consequences of that fault. Information the Council sent me shows it is likely that, during the period Miss X was not bidding, properties of the relevant size went to applicants with longer waiting time in the relevant band than Miss X would have had. So it is unlikely the Council’s fault deprived Miss X of an offer of social housing. Nevertheless, the Council’s fault caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
17. The Council has apologised to Miss X and offered her £500 for this matter. In the circumstances, investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to result in us recommending more. It is for Miss X to decide whether to accept this offer. (The Council also offered Miss X a further £220 for matters not directly related to the complaint I am considering.)

Claimed impact on Miss X’s health

18. The alleged effect on Miss X’s health is really a claim of personal injury. The courts can consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point. The possible cost of court action does not automatically mean we should investigate instead. Liability for personal injury is not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide this. So it is reasonable for Miss X to go to court if she seeks a decision on this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman