Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application and a data breach. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision. Additionally, complaints about data breaches are best considered by the Information Commissioners Office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council reduced his allocation points, and he cannot bid on a property or accommodate his children.
2. Mr X also complained a letter sent by the Council to his previous address was a data breach.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme (2024).

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s 2024 allocation scheme removed the allocation of relationship breakdown points. Mr X was notified in a letter sent to his previous address, which led to a delay in him receiving it.
9. Mr X asked for an application review, which upheld the Council’s original decision that the points were removed in line with its current allocation scheme.
10. The Council provided Mr X with a change of circumstances form and signposted him to support services.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions are correct. Unless we find fault in the decision making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
12. Based on the documents, it is unlikely we would find fault with how the Council made its decision.
13. The Council accepted the letter was sent to the incorrect address. However, since Mr X’s position on the housing register was in line with the published scheme, there was no significant injustice caused by this to justify further investigation of this matter.
14. Mr X complained that the letter was a data breach. The Council responded as a separate complaint and provided the details of the ICO. Based on the documents, Mr X is aware of his right to take his concern to the ICO, I have seen no good reason why it would not be reasonable to use this complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision, and it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to raise his concern about a data breach with the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman