Summary: Mr Z on behalf of Mr X and Miss Y says the Council failed to complete the remedy recommended by a previous Ombudsman investigation. We have found fault in the Council’s actions but do not recommend any further remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr Z on behalf of Mr X and Miss Y says the Council failed to complete the remedy recommended by a previous Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr Z and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. We issued a final decision in mid-December 2024 which asked the Council to within one month:

• Write to Mr X and Miss Y to apologise for the faults identified.
• Pay Mr X and Miss Y £500 to recognise the uncertainty and distress caused.
• Pay Mr X and Miss Y a further £460.50 to remedy the avoidable court costs they incurred.
• Review Mr X and Miss Y’s priority on the housing register and backdate any difference in points they are owed, if necessary.
• In writing, remind relevant officers about the contents of paragraphs 6.35 to 6.38 of the Code.
• In writing, remind officers of the importance of making timely decisions in accordance with the Housing Act and having regular contact with applicants.

7. The Council failed to provide us with evidence it had completed the action we asked it to within the timeframe we had set or the extended timeframes we allowed.
8. We told the Council if it did not provide the evidence by mid-March, we would open a new complaint and investigate its failure to complete the actions we had asked. We did not receive a response and so opened this complaint.
9. The Council responded shortly after we opened the new complaint to provide evidence it had now completed the actions.
10. The Council has shown it issued an apology to Mr X and Miss Y in mid-March 2025 and considered their place on the housing register and confirmed it did not need to make any changes. It had previously paid Mr X and Miss Y the financial element of the recommended remedy in January 2025.
11. The Council also showed it had issued a briefing note in January 2025 to officers in line with the recommended remedy.
12. The Council explained the delay in completing the remedy was due to staffing issues and apologised.
13. While I accept the Council’s explanation of the delay, it failed to complete the actions we asked within the timeframe we set. This is fault.
14. Mr X and Miss Y received the financial element of the remedy recommended and the Council completed the service improvements relatively quickly. Mr X and Miss Y have now received an apology from the Council, and it has confirmed no action needs to be taken about their place on the housing register.
15. I appreciate Mr X and Miss Y would have been disappointed by the delay in the Council issuing the apology. However, this was relatively short lived, and the Council has rectified this by issuing apology.
16. As such I am not recommending the Council takes any further action.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault not causing sufficient injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman