Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with a man’s housing case between 2016 and 2022. This is mainly because his complaint has been made late. Also, we could not achieve a more worthwhile result at this stage.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained in particular that:

1. the Council did not take enough action about harassment from his landlord in 2016 and 2017;

2. the temporary accommodation the Council provided between 2017 and early 2022 was not suitable for his family’s needs;

3. the Council failed to complete a review of his medical priority on the Housing Register which it promised in late 2021, and wrongly stopped him from bidding for properties in early 2022;

4. the Council unreasonably ended its housing duty in his case on the false basis that he had refused an offer of suitable accommodation;

5. the Council failed to keep to a promise it made in early 2022 to give him financial help to secure his current private rented accommodation;

6. Council officers discriminated against him and lied about his case.

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 an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• any injustice due to fault is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. Also, we normally 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)

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided to the Housing Ombudsman Service which they transferred when referring his complaint to us. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

5. I consider the legal restriction on our jurisdiction to consider late complaints, which I refer to in paragraph 3 above, applies to most of Mr X’s complaint issues.
6. Mr X was clearly aware of his complaint issues a) and b) by 2019 at the latest, and issues c), d) and f) by at least February 2022. But he did not bring these matters to an Ombudsman until December 2023. Even allowing for time to go through the Council’s complaints procedure, I consider Mr X still complained well outside the permitted period of 12 months since he was aware of the issues.
7. I am also not convinced we have grounds to exercise our discretion and investigate Mr X’s complaints now despite them being late. First, I consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to have complained to us much nearer to the time of the events in question, and I see no evidence to suggest he had good reason for complaining late.
8. Second, the further we have to go back to look into a complaint the less likely it is that we can achieve a meaningful investigation. I consider it very unlikely we could carry out a worthwhile investigation now into events up to seven years ago.
9. Also, we usually consider we should not investigate complaints about councils’ main decisions on homelessness applications. Applicants have statutory review rights about most decisions in their case, and the possibility of appealing to court if there is a negative review finding. This includes decisions to end the main housing duty, and about the suitability of temporary accommodation and accommodation offered to meet the main duty. So we usually expect applicants to use the review and appeal rights provided to them by law about these matters.
10. About complaint e), I note that in its recent final complaint response the Council accepted its fault in not offering Mr X a rent incentive in early 2022. As a result it apologised and offered to cover the rent in advance payment Mr X made from his own pocket. The Council also offered Mr X a further £150 to recognise the stress and inconvenience it caused him. I consider that is a suitable remedy for the injustice Mr X suffered over this issue and we would not be justified in pursuing the matter any further.

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council handled his housing case. This is mainly because his complaint about these matters was made late. Also, we are unlikely to achieve a more worthwhile outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman