Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her application for rehousing. Part of the complaint is late. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its management of her housing register priority banding and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her complaints about access to information and rectification of records.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to help her move to safe housing and provide appropriate support since 2021. She also complains it has failed to respond to her information requests. She says the Council’s actions have put her at risk, caused distress and affected her mental health. She wants the Council to provide her with safe housing, offer a suitable financial remedy for distress caused, improve its service, respond to her subject access request and correct errors in its records.

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. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X first approached the Council to request rehousing in 2021. Ms X brought her complaint to us in March 2025. We will not investigate the Council’s actions prior to 2024 as this part of the complaint is late. If Ms X was dissatisfied before 2024, she could have approached us sooner. There is no good reason to investigate now.
8. In its complaint response, the Council stated it had increased her priority banding to band 1 in February 2024. This is the highest band of the Council’s allocations scheme. Although the Council has not yet made Ms X an offer of suitable housing, we recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips supply and many applicants wait years before receiving an offer of suitable housing. Although I acknowledge the situation has caused Ms X distress, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.
9. The Council has accepted it delayed processing her request for a referral to a social housing exchange scheme during 2024 and there was delay in its handling of her complaint. It apologised to her for this and offered her £650 in recognition of the frustration and distress caused. This is a suitable remedy, and it is unlikely an investigation by us would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.
10. Ms X also complains the Council has not responded to her Subject Access Request and wants the Council to rectify errors in her records. We will not investigate this. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK regulator for information rights and data protection. If Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s response about these matters, the ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information and rectification of records.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about access to information and rectification of records.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman