Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s housing register application between 2023 and 2025. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now. We will not investigate the parts of the complaint that are in time. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and part of the complaint is premature.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s handling of her housing register application, including its consideration of her medical priority and her removal from the register. More specifically she complains the Council:
1. during summer 2023, banned her from its housing register after she refused its offer of alternative accommodation due to domestic violence and safety concerns;
2. in December 2023, requested information about a family member’s will that would place her at risk when obtaining due to a history of domestic abuse;
3. in January 2024, communicated poorly with her about its decision to remove her from the register and failed to reply to emails. Miss Y says the Council closed her case without telling her and failed to make reasonable adjustments or consider her vulnerabilities. She says the Council ignored extensive evidence from medical professionals and other third parties, including a specialist housing charity; and,
4. poorly handled her reports of persistent noise issues coming from a neighbouring Council leasehold property. She says the issues have been ongoing for around ten years, but the Council failed to act.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Matters before December 2023

10. Miss Y complains about the Council’s handling of her housing register application over the last ten years, as well as noise issues reported during this time. She says the Council made several unsuitable offers of accommodation, with the most recent offer taking place in July 2023. These complaints are late because Miss Y did not complain to the Ombudsman until January 2026. This means we would not normally consider events before January 2025.
11. I have seen good reasons for us to exercise discretion and consider matters from December 2023 onwards only. This is because there was a period of around one year and one month when Miss Y was experiencing significant mental health difficulties, which likely affected her ability to complain to us sooner.
12. Regarding the Council’s offer of accommodation in July 2023, we would not investigate this complaint if Miss Y had made it in time. The route for sending suitability appeals is to the Council in the first instance under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. This is the process we would have expected Miss Y to follow, which she did. The Council progressed Miss Y’s review request after she rejected the offer. In December, it decided the accommodation was unsuitable. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigating.
13. Further, it is not fault by the Council to suspend an applicant from its housing register after an applicant refuses a reasonable offer. This is in line with the Council’s published Housing Allocations Scheme. For this reason, we would not investigate any decision by the Council to suspend Miss Y from its register until it completed its review.

Review of offer of accommodation (December 2023)

14. In December 2023, the Council sent Miss Y its review decision. It decided the offer was unsuitable based on the new information Miss Y sent its Reviews team about domestic violence and safety concerns in the area. The Council considered the new information Miss Y provided and overturned its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify investigating.

Housing register reassessment (December 2023 and January 2024)

15. In mid-December, the Council told Miss Y it needed to reassess her application and make sure she was in the correct priority band. The Senior Officer asked Miss Y to send:

• any further information about safety concerns in the Borough so the Council could decide which areas, if any, would be suitable. The Senior Officer explained, if no areas were considered safe, the housing register may be unable to offer alternative accommodation;
• documents detailing any money or assets received from a family member’s estate; and,
• information about any housing adaptations required, including any supporting medical evidence. The Council had previously awarded her Band 1 for living in a Council property where she did not need the adaptations. Under this banding, Miss Y would be transferred to a suitable non-adapted property. The Senior Officer explained the Council needed to reassess her banding given she had told the Reviews Officer she needed adaptations to her home.

16. The Council was entitled to reassess Miss Y’s application and request evidence to do so, including evidence showing any financial changes connected with her family member’s estate. It gave Miss Y clear reasons why it needed the evidence. Her review request highlighted several changes in circumstances. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
17. In January 2024, the Council closed Miss Y’s housing register application. This was because Miss Y did not send the above information within the Council’s seven-day deadline. This meant the Council could not reassess her application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this decision. This is based on the following:

• Miss Y did not reply to the Senior Officer’s email from December. So, the Senior Officer sent her a follow-up email asking her to let them know if she was experiencing any difficulties providing the information or she would like someone else to represent her; and,
• Miss Y replied to say she would not send the information because she did not know who the Senior Officer was. The Senior Officer replied the same day setting out their role and reasons for contacting Miss Y. The Senior Officer gave Miss Y a clear deadline of seven days to send the information or the Council would close her application.

18. Miss Y says the Council failed to send the reassessment request by post, which she requested in response to the Senior Officer’s chaser email. While it would have been good practice for the Council to do so, I do not consider this shows sufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. The above action shows the Council made reasonable efforts to support Miss Y in sending the documents. It sent a chaser email with a clear deadline for sending the documents with information about the Senior Officer’s role. It gave Miss Y the opportunity to have someone represent her if she was struggling to provide the documents. The Council could not progress the reassessment and consider any medical evidence without the requested information. That it emailed her about its reassessment decision is not evidence of fault by the Council.
19. If Miss Y was concerned about the authenticity of the email or she had safety concerns about getting the family member’s will, she could have contacted the Council through other means to raise these issues. For example, she could have phoned or emailed the Council if in-person contact was not possible.
20. So, we will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about the closure of her application.
21. In late 2025, in response to Miss Y’s complaint, the Council explained to Miss Y that she could reapply to join its housing register. It encouraged her to reapply so the Council could decide her priority banding and application date. It remains open to Miss Y to do so and send the Council any relevant supporting information, including from medical professionals. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council gave Miss Y clear information about how to reapply to join its register given she did not have a live application. Miss Y is yet to reapply. This means any complaint about the Council’s recent consideration of Miss Y’s medical evidence or priority banding is premature. For these reasons, we will not investigate Miss Y’s more recent complaint.

Noise complaints (December 2023 to December 2025)

22. Miss Y also complained about the Council’s handling of noise issues connected with neighbouring council leaseholders. She said it refused to discuss enforcement of lease terms with her.
23. We cannot investigate the Council’s handling of noise issues when acting in its role as Miss Y’s social landlord and managing Council leaseholder behaviour. We do not have the power to investigate these complaints. If Miss Y wishes to pursue the matter further, she may wish to complain to the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman deals with certain complaints about tenant and leaseholder behaviour and it will reach their own decision about whether the complaint falls within its jurisdiction.
24. Under its separate statutory nuisance powers, the Council’s noise nuisance team considered several reports of noise issues from Miss Y. Miss Y reported these incidents between May and November 2025. On each occasion, the Council sent Miss Y its standard initial response and asked her to complete and return diary sheets so it could assess the issues. The Council closed each report when it received no response from Miss Y and no diary sheets were provided. Without the necessary requested information, we would not expect the Council to investigate the reports further. Also, it has clearly explained to Miss Y how she may report the issues at different times of the day and provided the relevant contact details for this. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s reports of statutory noise nuisance.

Subject access request

25. Miss Y complained to us about the Council’s response to her subject access request (SAR). Parliament set up the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) to consider data protection and SAR-related disputes. Miss Y has already complained to the ICO. The ICO is better placed to consider Miss Y’s complaint. So, we will not investigate.

Communication and complaint handling

26. It is not a proportionate use of our limited resources to look at the Council’s communications with Miss Y alone when we are not considering the core issues. This includes the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s more recent reasonable adjustment requests and complaints. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. So, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

27. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s housing register application between 2023 and 2024. Part of the complaint is late. We will not investigate the matters that are in time. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and part of the complaint is premature.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman