Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the start date of her housing register application. This is because this complaint is late and there is no good reason why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner. We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint about her priority banding. The Council failed to clearly inform Mrs X it would not reassess her priority banding in response to the additional medical documents she submitted. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for this lack of communication.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council's handling of her housing register application. She said the Council failed to:
• recognise the full duration of her time on the housing register following a change in her marital status;
• backdate her registration to the original application date when she was still married; and
• consider relevant medical information from her GP when determining her priority band.
2. She said she had lived in temporary accommodation for ten years and been required to move multiple times. She said this had caused avoidable distress to her family and negatively impacted her children’s mental health and educational progress.
3. She wants the Council to backdate her time on the housing register to the date of her original joint application with her former husband. Additionally, she wants the Council to consider her health condition, which she believes qualifies her for the highest priority band.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Following the end of her relationship, Mrs X applied to join the housing register. The Council accepted the application, but dated the registration date from 2021. It said the original application was in her partner’s name and it listed her a household member only.
10. The Council made its decision to update Mrs X’s start date on the housing register in 2021. The law says we cannot look at matters the complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months unless we have good reason to. I have seen no good reason why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner. Mrs X did not complain to us until November 2024, therefore, we will only consider those events which took place from November 2023.
11. In September 2024 Mrs X submitted a letter from her GP to the Council, asking the Council to change her priority banding to the highest priority. Based on her new medical condition Ms X said her temporary accommodation had become unsuitable and requested a suitability review.
12. In its suitability review, the Council concluded Mrs X’s current accommodation remained suitable. The Council considered the information she had provided and sought advice from its medical adviser. It further set out her review rights. If Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s decision, it would have been appropriate for her to ask for a review with the possibility to appeal to the County Court if she remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the review.
13. Mrs X also requested a review of her housing priority banding on medical grounds and submitted supporting medical documentation. Later that month, the Council informed her by email it was unlikely she met the criteria for Band A priority, particularly as her temporary accommodation had recently been assessed as suitable.
14. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find the Council at fault, as it did not tell Mrs X the information she had provided was not sufficient to trigger a reassessment of her housing priority banding. The Council acknowledged this oversight and agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the lack of clear communication. Because the Council’s decision that Mrs X did not meet the criteria for Band A was unchanged, we found the Council’s apology to be a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s first complaint because it is late and there is no good reason why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner. We have upheld Mrs X’s second complaint about her priority banding. The Council failed to clearly inform Mrs X it would not reassess her priority banding in response to the additional medical documents she submitted. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for this lack of communication which is suitable to remedy any injustice this caused her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman