Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X’s housing application. This is because the Council has offered a proportionate remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to consider she was fleeing domestic abuse when it refused her housing register application. Ms X says that as a result she was fearful her former partner would find her and the Council’s actions caused distress to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X applied to the Council’s housing register. On her application, Ms X said she could not return to her home area due to abusive relationships. The Council refused Ms X’s application as she had not lived in the Council’s area for two years. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision and referred to fleeing domestic abuse in her request. The Council remained of the view that Ms X did not qualify for the housing register.
6. The Council later decided Ms X qualified for the housing register as she was homeless and it had accepted the main housing duty. But the Council did not activate Ms X’s housing register account so she could not bid on properties for four months. The Council placed Ms X in band two and backdated her priority to the date of her application.
7. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council failing to consider she was fleeing domestic abuse when it refused her housing register application. Our remedies aim to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault had not occurred. The Council has now accepted Ms X’s application and backdated her housing priority to the date of her application. It has therefore put her back into the position she would have been in. An investigation would not achieve any more for Ms X.
8. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in activating Ms X’s housing register account for four months. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council apologised for the delay in activating her account. We consider it is unlikely Ms X missed an offer of a property during the four month delay. This is because Ms X’s bids have not been successful since the activation of her housing register account. So, the Council’s apology is a proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Ms X.
9. The Council acknowledged it significantly delayed in dealing with Ms X’s complaint and offered a payment of £100. This is a proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Ms X by the delay so we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman