Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Ms X’s homelessness application. This is because we could not add anything to the investigation already carried out by the Council and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider a complaint about a breach of data protection regulations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council handled her homelessness application. She also complains the Council breached data protection regulations by disclosing her private information to her landlord. She says the Council’s actions caused her distress and negatively impacted her mental health. She wants the Council to make her an offer of social housing within its area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council explained how it had reached its decisions in her case. It said its officer had apologised to her for any upset caused during discussions about her mental health and confirmed that no distress was intended. It accepted there were some delays responding to her emails and apologised for this. It said it had reaffirmed standards to its officers within team meetings. It also accepted its officer had not updated her following conversations it had with her landlord to try and prevent her homelessness. It explained how the oversight had occurred, apologised, and said it would learn from the situation moving forward.
7. It said it had accepted it owed her the main housing duty and that she was currently awaiting an offer of permanent accommodation.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as we could not add anything to the Council’s investigation. It has explained the actions it took in her case, accepted some faults in its communications, and apologised for these. It has acted to improve its service moving forward by reminding officers of the service standards and reviewing its processes for when officers are on leave. This is what we would expect. An investigation by us would achieve nothing more.
9. Ms X wants the Council to offer her permanent social housing. The Council has a duty to allocate social housing to applicants in line with its housing allocations policy. We could not require the Council to make Ms X an offer of social housing outside of this policy and so could not achieve this.
10. If Ms X considers the Council has breached data protection regulations, she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about this and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and the ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about a breach of data protection regulations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman