Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions while Mrs X was homeless. The complaint is late without good enough reason to pursue it now. Any review is unlikely to have changed the housing register priority. Mrs X could reasonably have used her right to go to court about the delay completing the suitability review and the result of that review. Compensation is properly a matter for the courts, not for us.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her family’s housing case over several years, especially how it handled requests to review their priority on the housing register and the suitability of homelessness temporary accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I understand Mrs X’s family sought the reviews of their housing priority and the suitability of their temporary accommodation in 2020 or 2021. Therefore Mrs X was unhappy with her priority and her accommodation then. The suitability review ended in September 2022; it is unclear if the housing register priority review ever happened. Mrs X would reasonably have known within a few months of the requests that the Council had not replied promptly. She did not complain to us until April 2024. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies to the complaint.
9. I appreciate Mrs X meanwhile had to deal with her housing situation, then moving house and a bereavement. However, I also note Mrs X was able to seek advice or representation from a solicitor and a housing advice organisation, who could reasonably have advised about complaining to the Ombudsman. I also note Mrs X’s complaint was in the Council’s complaint procedure for a prolonged period. However, Mrs X need not have waited indefinitely for the Council’s final response before contacting us (as the organisation representing her could reasonably have established); and indeed Mrs X eventually contacted us before getting the Council’s final response.
10. While I appreciate Mrs X had difficult circumstances, I consider she could reasonably have come to us much sooner. I also note there is no continuing unresolved homelessness as Mrs X’s family got long-term housing last year. Overall, I am not persuaded there is good enough reason to investigate this late complaint now.
11. Even if the points above did not apply, there are other reasons we will not investigate this complaint.
12. On the housing register priority, Mrs X was on the housing register due to homelessness. The Council says the priority the application had (Band 3) was the only priority it could give in such circumstances. From my reading of the Council’s housing allocation policy, that appears correct. So, even if the Council had done a review as requested, the application’s priority banding is unlikely to have changed. For this reason also we shall not investigate this point.
13. On the review of the temporary accommodation’s suitability, the Council states Mrs X’s solicitor chose to agree to allow the Council more time. In that case, a solicitor would reasonably have known Mrs X had the right to appeal to the county court if the Council did not complete the review within eight weeks. The Council’s eventual review decision upheld that the accommodation was suitable. Mrs X would then have had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she believed the Council was wrong. Whether accommodation is suitable, as legally defined, for the people involved, is a point of law.
14. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to any dissatisfaction with both how long the review took and the result of the review. The law expressly provides this route for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. The court can make a binding decision and overturn the Council’s decision if it sees fit, unlike the Ombudsman. There might be a potential cost to court action, but that is not in itself automatically a reason to consider court action unreasonable, and applicants can get help with court costs if they are eligible. As noted above, I appreciate Mrs X’s circumstances were difficult for at least some of the time. However, I also note the household was able to seek external help with matters. Overall, I consider it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to use her right to go to court.
15. The Council offered Mrs X £250 to recognise some delays. Mrs X considers that inadequate and wants compensation, including for time spent in accommodation she describes as unsuitable. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess damages and award compensation. That is more properly the role of the courts. And, as explained above, we have not made a finding either way about whether the accommodation was unsuitable.
16. Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her formal complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is mainly because the complaint is late without good enough reason to pursue it now. Any review is unlikely to have changed the housing register priority. Mrs X could reasonably have used her right to go to court about the delay completing the suitability review and the result of that review. Compensation is properly a matter for the courts, not for us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman