Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application. This is because doing so would not lead to a different outcome and it is reasonable Mr X to use his right of appeal, and to raise his complaint about data protection matters with the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about misleading advice he was given after he was evicted. Mr X says that he was told he would have up to six months’ help with rent and that he would move up the housing register. Mr X also says the Council breached his data protection rights by sending correspondence to the incorrect address.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))

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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless when he faced eviction. The Council accepted him under the homelessness relief duty but did not consider that he was in priority need. The Council awarded Mr X Band C on the housing register and wrote to him in April to say it could support him with a deposit and one month rent should he rent a property privately.
7. Mr X subsequently spoke to a housing officer and says he was advised that the Council could support him with up to six months’ rent. The Council’s records state that Mr X was told it could look to support Mr X for up to four months’ rent.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has accepted that it provided him with incorrect information about how it could support him and apologised for the confusion this caused. After the conversation between Mr X and the housing officer, Mr X was informed of the correct level of support available to him. Further investigation into this point would not lead to a different outcome.
9. The Council allocated Mr X with Band C based on it not considering him to have a priority need, in accordance with its allocations policy. If Mr X disagreed with this conclusion that he did not have a priority need it would have been reasonable for him to have requested a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. I will therefore not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint.
10. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council breached his data protection rights by sending documents to the incorrect address. This is because it is reasonable for him to raise this matter with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), who is better placed to consider complaints about data breaches.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would not lead to a different outcome and it is reasonable Mr X to use his right of appeal and to raise his complaint about data protection matters with the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman