Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a homelessness decision in 2022 or about the way the Council handled her reports of disrepair in her private rented property in late 2022. This is because both complaints are late. There is no evidence that Ms X could not have complained sooner and no good reason to investigate now.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision in October 2022 that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. She said she was later told by a third party organisation that the decision was wrong because the Council had not considered the harassment she reported by the landlord.
2. Ms X also complained about the Council’s handling of her reports of disrepair in her private rented property in late 2022, and that the Council’s enforcement action led to her landlord starting the process to evict her.
3. Ms X said the Council’s failings caused her considerable stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Ms X asked the Council for assistance in September 2022. She told it her landlord had told her she would need to pay for repairs and, if she did not agree to do so, she would need to leave. The Council referred the repair issue to its private disrepair team. In October 2022, it decided she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. Ms X said she was later told by a third party organisation that this decision was wrong.
11. The Council inspected Ms X’s property in October 2022, a few days after she reported problems. Using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, it did not identify any category 1 or 2 hazards. Following the inspection, it wrote to the managing agent with a schedule of works and suggested dates for completing these. It sent an email to Ms X to update her. Ms X sent an email asking for an update in November 2022 and then an email complaining, neither of which the Council responded to. Around this time, the landlord started the eviction process by serving a section 21 notice. Ms X complained to the Council.
12. We expect someone to complain to us within one year of becoming aware of the event they wish to complain about. Ms X was aware of the Council’s homelessness decision, and how it had dealt with her reports of disrepair decision around in October 2022. Ms X did not complain to the Ombudsman until 2024, therefore, the complaints are late, and we will not investigate, There is no evidence she could not have complained to us sooner.
13. In any event:
1. Ms X would have had a right to ask for a review of the Council’s homelessness decision and to appeal to the county court on a point of law. It was reasonable for her to do this if she considered the decision was wrong;
2. it was for the Council to consider the evidence and decide whether Ms X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. The fact that a third party may have made a different decision is not, on its own, evidence of fault by the Council that warrants investigation;
3. Ms X made a further homelessness application in February 2023, after her landlord issued a section 21 notice, following which the Council accepted a housing duty. Therefore, any injustice as a result of the delay in assisting Ms X with her housing matter is not sufficient to justify us investigating now.
4. the Council took the action we would expect after Ms X reported disrepair. In its complaint response, it accepted some fault in the way it communicated with Ms X and a delay in responding to her complaint, for which it has apologised, and that is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
14. Ms X made a further report of disrepair in early 2023, and the Council took appropriate action to address this. It explained it could not insist the landlord replaced the boiler, it could only ensure the boiler is in working order. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council addressed this to justify us investigating this matter further.
15. For all these reasons, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is late. There is no evidence Ms X could not complain to us earlier, and no good reason to justify investigating now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman