Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider her application to join the housing register and delayed responding to her complaint. Miss X says this caused unnecessary stress and anxiety and resulted in her family remaining in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way it considered Miss X’s application, but some fault in how it handled her complaint. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider her application to join the housing register. She says the Council did not properly consider her circumstances or the reasons she gave for making her application.
2. Miss X also complains the Council delayed responding to her complaint. She says the Council’s actions have caused her unnecessary stress and anxiety and meant her family have stayed in unsuitable accommodation for a longer period.
3. Miss X also complains the Council breached data protection when a Council officer wrongly accessed her personal data records.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s housing application dating back to 2018. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I 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. I 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
9. If we are satisfied with a council’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

10. I have spoken to Miss X and considered the information she provided.
11. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information provided by it.
12. Miss X and the Council have had the opportunity to provide their comments on a draft of this decision. I have taken these comments into account when making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

13. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

The Council’s housing allocation policy

14. The Council prioritises housing applicants according to need. Eligible and qualifying applicants are placed in one of four bands with Band A having the highest assessed need, and Band D the lowest.
15. The Council’s lettings policy lists circumstances where applicants may be placed in Band A. These include an assessed need for an urgent transfer based on urgent medical need or urgent health and safety risk, or where applicants lack two or more bedrooms. The policy also specifies that applicants with urgent multiple needs (or where two or more of the criteria in Band B are met) will be placed in Band A.
16. The policy specifies Band B criteria to be:

• High health and safety risk;
• High medical need;
• Lacking one bedroom;
• Under-occupancy by one bedroom;
• Victims of harassment, violence or abuse;
• Potentially homeless;
• Sleeping rough, and
• Multiple needs.

The Council’s complaints policy

17. The Council’s complaints policy says it aims to acknowledge complaints within five working days and provide a response within 20 working days. If this is not possible, it will write to the complainant to tell them what action is being taken and when a response can be expected.

Back to top

What happened

18. Miss X lived in a three-bedroom social housing property with her three children. In about 2014, Miss X began a new relationship and her partner moved into the property.
19. At about the same time, Miss X complained to the Council that one of its officers had wrongly accessed her personal data. The outcome of this complaint is not confirmed.
20. In 2016, Miss X gave birth to twins. Miss X, her partner and five children remained living in the three-bedroom house.
21. In March 2018, Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register. She wanted to move to a larger property because of her growing family.
22. The Council wrote to Miss X and asked for further information to support her application. It asked her to provide proof of identity and income for each adult, and birth certificates for her children. The Council said if the information were not provided within 28 days, the application would be cancelled.
23. Miss X says she went to the Council office to provide this information. She says whilst there, she saw that the Council officer about whom she had complained in 2014 was working there. Miss X says she did not want the officer to see her personal information so decided not to provide it at that time.
24. Miss X says she called the Council and told it about her concerns. She says she asked if she could provide the information securely to a manager but says this request was declined. Miss X says the Council told her it could not guarantee the officer would not be able to access her confidential data records.
25. In June 2018, the Council wrote to Miss X and said her application was cancelled because she had not provided the required information.
26. On 27 February 2019, Miss X complained to the Council. She said she had provided her new telephone number as part of her 2018 application and had since received unwanted contact via her phone. Miss X referred to the alleged data protection breach from 2014 and said that she had been assured her personal details would be protected. She said she felt unable to provide her information securely.
27. Miss X said the Council did not take her allegations of harassment into account when considering her application, and as a result had not properly considered her circumstances.
28. In June 2019, the Council told Miss X it was reviewing her complaint and was liaising with the Police. It apologised for the delay and told Miss X it would provide an update within a few weeks.
29. Miss X asked the Council for an update in September 2019.
30. The Council responded to the complaint on 4 October 2019. It said it had looked again at the 2014 complaint about data protection issues and had not changed its previous complaints decision. The Council said Miss X could apply to the housing register and assured her that only “appropriate” officers would be able to manage her application. It also acknowledged that a manager had passed an email from Miss X to the officer named in her complaint and apologised for this.
31. In late October 2019, Miss X applied to the housing register again. She gave her reasons for the application as overcrowding and said she was experiencing anti-social behaviour or harassment.
32. In November 2019, the Council requested proof of identity and income for each adult, and birth certificates for the children.
33. The Council wrote to Miss X on 16 December 2019 to acknowledge receipt of the above information. It said it aimed to process her application within 15 working days.
34. On 7 January 2020, the Council wrote to tell Miss X she had been accepted onto the register. It placed Miss X in priority Band B because her family was lacking one bedroom. The letter also requested evidence that Miss X had been experiencing anti-social behaviour.
35. Miss X provided photographs and documents relating to the Police’s involvement as evidence to the Council.
36. The Council told Miss X it was unable to award priority for harassment because the incidents took place more than six months ago and were no longer ongoing. It also said the Police had not indicated it was unsafe for Miss X to remain at her home.
37. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the Council had not properly considered the circumstances of her case, specifically that she was subject to harassment. Miss X says the Council’s allocations policy should place her in Band A because of overcrowding and the harassment she has received.

Back to top

Analysis

38. I have exercised discretion in investigating the complaint back to 2018. This is because the issue relates to potential errors in considering Miss X’s applications dating back to this period, and the potential impact of the Council’s decision is ongoing.
39. Having reviewed the information provided, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s applications in 2018 and 2019.

The 2018 application

40. The 2018 application form asked why Miss X was applying to join the register. Miss X gave her reason to be because her home was overcrowded. There was an option for Miss X to declare she was experiencing anti-social behaviour or harassment, but she did not select this.
41. Miss X says the reason for this was because she did not want the officer about whom she had complained to see it as the reason for her application. Miss X says she spoke to the Council at the time about this matter but was told the security of her information could not be guaranteed. Miss X says this is the reason she did not provide the information requested by the Council.
42. I requested copies of any emails to support this. However, neither party has provided me with evidence to show Miss X discussed this with the Council or tried to provide this information.
43. As Miss X did not declare she was experiencing harassment on the form, I would not expect the Council to consider this as part of her application.
44. The Council asked for additional information regarding proof of identity and income and said it would cancel the application if this was not received within 28 days.
45. The Council says the information was not received. It cancelled the application 91 days after its request, so I am satisfied the Council did not prematurely cancel the application.
46. Miss X says she tried to provide her information securely via an alternative method. But because I have seen no evidence of this, and because anti-social behaviour was not declared on the form, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the application and Miss X’s circumstances as declared at the time.

The 2019 application

47. In the 2019 application, Miss X gave her reasons for applying as because she was experiencing anti-social behaviour/harassment and her home was overcrowded.
48. The Council requested additional information and once received, said it would provide a response within 15 working days. It gave its response 13 working days after the acknowledgement letter, so there was no delay.
49. The Council requested evidence of the anti-social behaviour so it could be considered. It says it received no evidence and there is no record of anti-social behaviour with its Community Team.
50. However, Miss X has provided evidence that she did forward photographs and details of Police involvement regarding harassment and anti-social behaviour to the Council.
51. The Council acknowledged receipt of this. It told Miss X it was unable to award priority for harassment because the incidents occurred more than six months ago and were no longer ongoing. It also said the Police had not advised it was unsafe for Miss X in her current property.
52. The evidence therefore shows the Council did consider the allegations of harassment but decided not to award priority on this basis.

The Council’s decision

53. The Council has placed Miss X in priority Band B based on the need for one extra bedroom.
54. According to the Council’s lettings policy, incidences where the applicant is the subject of harassment may be considered to be an additional criterion. If accepted, and when considered with the overcrowding criterion, this would have placed Miss X in Band A.
55. The Council decided not to award priority due to harassment because the incidents occurred more than six months ago and were no longer ongoing.
56. The Council’s housing allocation policy does not specify it will only consider incidents within six months of the application.
57. However, its policy states priority may be given for harassment, violence or abuse, where the Council “has investigated and identified that the applicant (or a member of their household) is being subjected to harassment or other conduct causing alarm and distress…” The policy therefore specifies that harassment will attract its own priority if it is ongoing.
58. The evidence provided by Miss X referred to incidents which occurred in 2018. Also, Miss X says the harassment stopped in February 2019 at about the same time she complained to the Council.
59. I am therefore satisfied the Council considered the allegations of harassment as part of the 2019 application and applied its policy in this respect. The Council placed Miss X in Band B based on the single criterion of overcrowding. There is no evidence of fault in how it made this decision.

Delay in considering the complaint

60. There is evidence of delay in the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint. The complaint was made on 27 February 2019 and a response was not provided until 4 October 2019. It is acknowledged that the Council provided an update to Miss X in June 2019. Nevertheless, there was considerable delay in providing a response.
61. The Council says the reason for the delay was due to the sensitive and complex nature of the complaint, with the Council liaising with the Police before providing its response. It also says staff who were involved at the time of the 2014 complaint are no longer employed, and this may have contributed to the delay.
62. Miss X says the people who investigated the complaint in 2014 are still employed by the Council, but I have seen no evidence of this.
63. The evidence shows the Council acknowledged the complaint in June 2019 and told Miss X it was liaising with the Police. Its policy says it will write to explain what action is being taken and when a response can be expected. Whilst this was done, I am satisfied the substantial delay in providing an update to Miss X, and in providing a response to her complaint constitutes fault.
64. I acknowledge Miss X would have been aware of the Police involvement at the time.
65. Miss X says the Council’s actions in not protecting her personal data has caused her stress and worry. However, this injustice does not flow from the fault identified but relates to the aspect of the complaint which is not included in this investigation. Miss X also says her family remains in overcrowded accommodation and this adds to the stress. The issue of overcrowding is not linked to the fault identified because there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions.
66. Miss X says she could have made a new application in March 2019 if the Council had provided its response within 20 days. She says she could have submitted evidence of the harassment at that time and that this would have placed her in priority Band A.
67. However, Miss X says the harassment ended in February 2019. As a result, the reason given by the Council for not awarding Band A (that the harassment was not ongoing), would still have been valid.
68. The injustice flowing from the fault identified is frustration caused by the delay in the Council providing its complaints response. As stated however, this is mitigated by the fact Miss X would have been aware of the Police’s involvement and its likely impact on the consideration of her complaint.

Agreed action

69. To address the injustice arising from the fault identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action:

• Apologise to Miss X within four weeks of the final decision;
• Within four weeks of the final decision, remind staff to adhere to the Council’s complaints policy, specifically to provide written updates when considering complaints for more than 20 working days.

70. The Council is required to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

71. I have completed the investigation and found the Council’s fault caused Miss X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

72. I have not investigated the complaint that the Council breached data protection.
73. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) 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)
74. The ICO is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation.
75. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. The ICO has wider powers than the Ombudsman to act if it finds the Council has failed in its duty as a data controller. Miss X should therefore complain to the ICO because it is the appropriate body to deal with her concerns.
76. I have not investigated the complaint from 2014 because it relates to an alleged breach of data protection. For the reasons already stated, Miss X should complain to the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman