Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s housing. We cannot reasonably expect to reach a clear enough view now about events dating back over 20 years. On the more recent events, any investigation would not achieve what Mrs X wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about matters related to her family’s housing over many years. She says this has damaged her family’s health, caused distress and affected her ability to work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take, or could have taken, the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go, or to have gone, to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or it would have been reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Mrs X’s previous homelessness applications and related matters

7. Mrs X applied to the Council as homeless twice between 2003 and 2014. She complains about the Council’s handling of those applications, including its treatment of her as a domestic violence victim, its moving the family between different temporary accommodation that Mrs X says was unsuitable and unsafe and its stopping Mrs X bidding on its housing register after it offered her accommodation and ended its homelessness duty in 2014.
8. Mrs X knew about those events more than 12 months before her complaint to us in September 2024. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. I note Mrs X complained to the Council about some of these matters in 2017, but not to us. I appreciate Mrs X has had many difficult circumstances in her family in the period 2003 to 2014 and since (I shall not give details here for confidentiality reasons). However, while those points might have had some impact on her ability to complain promptly, I consider Mrs X could reasonably have complained to us much sooner than 10 to 21 years after the events.
9. In any event, Mrs X had review rights on some Council decisions she now complains about. That included decisions about the suitability of temporary accommodation and of housing the Council offered when ending its homelessness duties. It would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her review rights at the time. If, on review, the Council had agreed accommodation was unsuitable, it would have had to offer an alternative. If a Council review had upheld that accommodation was suitable, Mrs X would then have had a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. So she might have been able to seek court decisions on those matters.
10. Even if there were good reasons to accept the complaint late and not to expect Mrs X to have used her review rights when she had them, it would still not be appropriate for us to seek to investigate these events. We cannot reasonably expect to reach a clear enough view now about what happened, what should have happened, whether the Council was at fault and the impact of any faults on matters so many years ago. It is unlikely clear enough evidence from the time is still available. Also, we could not apply current standards, guidance, or professional expectations to events so long ago. It would therefore be more difficult to reach a firm and fair conclusion on whether there was fault.
11. For these reasons, I shall not investigate the complaint about old events.

2024 homelessness

12. Mrs X applied to the Council as homeless again this year. The Council took steps including putting Mrs X on the housing register again due to her current circumstances. We would only investigate the Council’s handling of this matter if, were we to uphold the complaint, it was likely we could achieve what Mrs X wants or considers worthwhile. Mrs X told us she wants her complaint to us to result in the Council:
1. Backdating her housing register priority to 2003, when she first dealt with the Council about her housing – As explained above, we will not investigate whether the Council was at fault from 2003 onwards. With the recent events – Mrs X’s current homelessness application – the Council’s policy is that the housing register priority date is the date the person became homeless or threatened with homelessness. There is no fault in the Council taking this as the date of Mrs X’s recent homelessness status, not the dates relevant to previous homelessness applications. We could not reasonably ask the Council to give Mrs X another 21 years’ priority.
2. Putting her application into Band A on the housing register – The application is in Band C, which appears correct under the Council’s policy. Therefore it is unlikely we would recommend what Mrs X wants here.
3. Giving her family permanent social housing – The Council can meet its homelessness duty by offering either social housing or private rented housing. It says it mostly offers private housing because of the shortage of social housing. I understand Mrs X’s argument that her family’s experiences over many years, much of which she blames on the Council, make her prefer the security of social housing. However, we are not investigating the Council’s alleged faults years ago. In that context, we could not reasonably say the Council should only resolve Mrs X’s current homelessness by offering social housing when the law allows it to offer private housing instead.
4. Paying compensation - Mrs X says the Council’s alleged faults over the years amount to negligence, damaging her family’s health, affecting her ability to work and causing distress. This is really a claim of personal injury. The courts could consider that, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to this point. Mrs X would have had the right to take court action at the time of the alleged faults and for some time afterwards, although she might not have that right in respect of the whole 21-year period now. The possible cost of court action does not in itself automatically mean the Ombudsman should investigate instead. Liability and compensation for personal injury are not straightforward legally. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide these points. So it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to take court action about earlier events when she had that right and it is reasonable to expect her to go to court if she wants a ruling on compensation for any current alleged negligence causing injury.
13. So any investigation by us of the recent homelessness application would not achieve anything approaching what Mrs X wants. It would therefore be disproportionate to devote time and public money to investigating this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The complaint about the earlier homelessness applications and housing arrangements is late without good enough reason to accept it now. Mrs X could reasonably have used her review rights on some of those points. We cannot reasonably expect to reach a clear enough view on those old events now. On the more recent events, any investigation would not achieve what Mrs X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman