Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s housing register application. The Council has agreed our suggestion to put matters right.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council wrongly automatically excluded her adult child from her housing application and the Council delayed reviewing that decision. She says this caused stress and uncertainty.
2. Mrs X further complains the Council has incorrectly banded her housing register application and not awarded star priority status.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because the Council’s stage 2 complaint response accepted the Council was at fault for the delay in actioning Mrs X’s review request.
8. I acknowledge the Council reinstated Mrs X’s adult child onto the application, apologised and offered £50. However, I do not consider that an adequate remedy for the injustice caused. Mrs X experienced stress, anxiety and uncertainty, as well as the inconvenience of repeatedly chasing her review request.
9. Mrs X’s housing register application is now in Band 3, which the Council considers correct but with a delayed effective date. That date would have been earlier had the Council not delayed dealing with the review when Mrs X requested it. The statutory guidance suggests a timescale of eight weeks for completing reviews. In due course, this is likely to disadvantage Mrs X compared with other applicants, especially those who did not need to ask for a review.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions by:
1. backdating Mrs X’s effective date to eight weeks after her initial review request and
2. offering Mrs X a payment of £200 for the distress and uncertainty

to resolve the complaint early.

11. Mrs X’s complaints about her application still allegedly being in the wrong band and not being awarded star priority were not in the matters the Council dealt with before Mrs X brought her complaint to us. It is reasonable to give the Council an opportunity to deal with those points first. So, in line with paragraph 4, we will not investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will backdate Mrs X’s effective date and pay her £200 within one month of today to put things right.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve part of the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X. We will not consider other parts of the complaint at this time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman