Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his housing register application. The Council has agreed a proportionate remedy for Mr X which removes the need to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council awarded him a lower housing register priority band after he was evicted and did not properly consider his medical and welfare needs when it conducted an internal review.
2. Mr X also complains he was not granted homeless relief duty in 2024, and the Council wrongly closed his homelessness case.
3. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. In 2024 Mr X approached the Council as homeless. The Council initially accepted a relief duty towards him; however it later closed Mr X’s homelessness application due to a lack of contact.
9. We normally expect people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. Mr X did not complain to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision to close his homelessness application within twelve months. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. I have considered whether to exercise our discretion to investigate the complaint, but I have seen no good reasons to do so.
10. Mr X also applied to the Council’s housing register. Mr X complained the Council awarded him a lower priority band after he was evicted. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his medical and welfare needs during the review process.
11. Mr X asked for a review of his housing band decision which the Council completed. In its review the Council did not explain how it considered the information Mr X provided it about his welfare and medical needs.
12. We therefore asked the Council to remedy Mr X’s injustice by completing a new review of Mr X’s housing register priority banding considering the information Mr X provided about his welfare and medical needs. We asked the Council to write to Mr X with its updated review decision and apologise for not including this information at the time.
13. Mr X also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. I will not investigate the matter of complaint handling as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We have upheld this complaint. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman