Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council’s decision to refuse to award band three housing priority to her is wrong and unfair. Ms X considers she is eligible for band three priority as she is living in insecure housing so is homeless. Ms X says the Council’s decision to refuse band three priority caused 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X applied for the Council’s housing register in 2023. The Council considered Ms X qualified for the housing register and placed her in band four which is the lowest priority band. We will not investigate how the Council considered Ms X’s application and priority before March 2024 as these events are late. It was open to Ms X to make a complaint to us sooner if she was unhappy with how the Council dealt with her application between July 2023 and March 2024.
8. In March 2024 Ms X made a complaint to the Council as she considered it should award band three priority. The Council’s housing allocations scheme provides that applicants who are homeless and who the Council has a statutory duty to accommodate will be placed in band three. It also places applicants who are overcrowded in band three.
9. The Council considered the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. The Council awarded a priority star to Ms X and apologised for the delay in doing so. It also said she was not eligible for band three priority as only accepted homeless applicants could be awarded such priority. The Council advised Ms X on how she could make a homelessness application.
10. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The Council took five months to respond to her complaint. In its response the Council apologised for the delay in dealing with her complaint. The Council also said that it would not award band three priority to Ms X as she was not homeless or overcrowded.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council refusing to award band three priority. The Council’s responses to Ms X’s complaint shows it has considered her circumstances and her reasons for wanting band three priority. It has explained why she is not eligible for such priority. The Council’s decision is also in accordance with its housing allocations scheme. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Ms X’s complaint about the Council not awarding band three priority.
12. The Council apologised for the delay in awarding a priority star to Ms X’s application. But, on balance, I do not consider the delay caused significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. Even if the Council had awarded the priority star earlier, it is unlikely that it would have increased Ms X’s priority enough to be offered a property. The Council’s apology for the delay is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the delay.
13. The Council also delayed in responding to Ms X’s stage two complaint. The Council apologised for the delay which is an appropriate and proportionate remedy to acknowledge the frustration caused to Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman