Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to keep accurate records of her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant injustice to Ms X to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to keep accurate records which led to fraudulent activity on her housing application. Ms X considers that the Council’s errors on her housing application caused her to miss offers of permanent accommodation and caused significant distress to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Ms X including the Council’s responses to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X is on the Council’s housing register. In 2022, Ms X found that her bidding number was linked to the incorrect account and showed incorrect details. The Council told Ms X that it had corrected the error. We will not investigate how Ms X’s bidding number was linked to the incorrect account. This is because this complaint is late and it was open to Ms X to make a complaint to us at that time. So, there are no good reasons to investigate the complaint now.
7. Ms X complained to the Council in 2024 that her bidding number was still linked to the incorrect account. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council confirmed that there had been no unauthorised use of Ms X’s personal details. The Council apologised to Ms X for the distress and inconvenience caused by the error. It also said applicants could now enter their own details on the system so the problem should not recur. The Council said its fault did not cause Ms X to miss an offer as the average wait for a property in Ms X’s priority band was six years. Ms X had been in the priority band for three years.
8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to correct its error in linking her bidding number to the wrong account. This is because there is insufficient injustice to Ms X to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the fault by the Council caused Ms X to miss an offer of accommodation as she has been in her current priority band for significantly less time than it takes for an offer to be made. The Council also apologised to Ms X for the distress caused to her which is a proportionate remedy which is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice to Ms X to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman