Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about being wrongly skipped for an offer through the housing register because the Council has remedied this by making a direct offer and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council wrongly bypassed her for a property through its housing register in 2022. She said the Council said it was a system error, but she thinks it is discriminating against her. She said she had been biding for 10 years without success.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. In March 2022, the Council wrongly bypassed Ms X for a property she had bid for. It’s system wrongly recorded she had rent arrears, which the Council said was due to human error. Ms X did not complain to the Council about this until October 2024. In its complaint response, in December 2024, the Council accepted the error, which meant she had missed out on an offer. It said it would make a direct offer of a property to remedy this.
8. Ms X initially said she did not want a direct offer as she thought the Council would use this to offer her a property no-one else wanted. She said she wanted the Council to offer her the next property she bid on.
9. She continued to bid on properties, but was not successful, and raised further concerns in April and May 2025. The Council continued to say it would make a direct offer of a suitable property but could not put a timeframe on when that would happen. The Council offered a new build property in September 2025.

My assessment

10. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Ms X did not complain to us about the skipped bid in 2022 until June 2025. The complaint is therefore late. There is no evidence to suggest Ms X could not have complained earlier and no good reasons to investigate now.
11. That said, the Council did investigate in December 2024, accepted fault and offered to remedy the matter by making a direct offer. It did not give a specific timeframe by which it would make the offer, which would have been difficult to do because it depends on various factors, including which properties become available. I accept it took longer than Ms X hoped, but the Council has now made a suitable offer, and that was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by its earlier fault. In the circumstances, further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
12. The Council explained to us why the error occurred and the reasons it was unlikely to happen again, so I am satisfied we do not need to make service improvement recommendations. There is no indication the error occurred due to discrimination by a Council officer.
13. For the reasons set out above, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman