Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the information the Council provided in response to a Freedom of Information request. The Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider that complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• Refused a face-to-face meeting with her to discuss her concerns without considering whether she needed a meeting as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010;
• Delayed responding to a Subject Access Request and provided a response to a Freedom of Information request that lacked sufficient detail.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions had affected her mental health.

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

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Refusing a meeting

7. The Equality Act 2010 requires councils to consider making reasonable adjustments for disabled people to assist them to access council services.
8. In its complaint response, the Council explained Ms X had not provided any information to suggest she needed a face-to-face meeting as a reasonable adjustment. It also said the person she wanted to meet had no influence on allocation decisions or her position on its housing register, so a meeting would not help Ms X.
9. The Council considered Ms X’s request. There is no indication she needed a face-to-face meeting with an officer to access information or services from its allocations team. It was therefore entitled to refuse the request and has explained its reasons. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating further.

Information sharing

10. Ms X has made multiple subject access requests. The Council refused to respond to a request in May 2025 because it was a repeat request and there was no reasonable intervening period following the previous request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to address any concerns about the refusal.
11. Ms X also made a freedom of information (FOI) request in relation to properties being allocated through the Council’s housing register. She asked it to explain why she had not been nominated for one of seven specific properties with a garden. The Council explained that some of the properties had specific features that Ms X had previously said would not be suitable for her. It said the remaining properties were allocated in line with its allocations scheme.
12. The Council provided general information about the operation of the scheme, the role of housing associations and how applicants are prioritised. It confirmed Ms X is in band A and needs a property with 2 bedrooms. However, there were 178 other households in band A waiting for a property with two bedrooms. It added that it was not required to provide the level of detail Ms X had asked for and also had to be mindful of the need to keep other applicant’s personal data confidential.
13. Ms X complained the Council’s response was dismissive and it was not sufficiently transparent about the operation of its allocations scheme.
14. The law says all councils must allocate properties in line with their published scheme. This means councils will firstly consider the applicant’s priority band and then the length of time waiting in that band, so those waiting longest in band A (the highest band) will be prioritised for rehousing. There is no evidence to suggest the Council is not allocating housing in line with its published scheme. Although it cannot predict how long Ms X will have to wait for rehousing, it has tried to explain how the system works and why she has not been rehoused already. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating further. If Ms X remains unhappy with the amount of detail provided in response to her FOI request, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to address that.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the aspects we can consider and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns about the information the Council is sharing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman