Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X’s housing application. The Council’s involving its fraud section was not fault and did not in itself cause significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. Miss X could reasonably have used her review right if she disagreed with the Council’s decision on her medical circumstances. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s alleged delays when we are not investigating the underlying substantive matters. Part of the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her social housing application, including: the involvement of the Council’s fraud section; the priority given to the application; the Council not making Miss X eligible for ground-floor properties; and delay.

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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or it would be, or would have been, 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of housing let on a long lease by a council that is a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)

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. Miss X is unhappy the Council referred her application to its fraud section. The Council says this was because Miss X seemed to have some connection to addresses outside the borough, which was relevant to whether she had lived continuously in the borough for the relevant period to qualify to join the housing register. After looking into information about the addresses, the Council decided Miss X met the requirements to join the register. In the circumstances, if we investigated it is unlikely we would fault the Council for having its fraud section consider the matter. The Council did not actually accuse Miss X of fraud; indeed its conclusion was that Miss X had not done anything wrong. This also means that, while I understand Miss X did not like the fraud section’s involvement, I do not consider it caused significant enough injustice to warrant investigation either.
9. Miss X argues the Council did not properly consider her medical circumstances. Therefore she believes her application should have higher priority and should be prioritised for ground-floor housing. In April 2024 the Council gave Miss X its decision on those points and said she could seek a review within 21 days. That review right is the route the law provides for challenging such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. I understand Miss X did not seek a review within 21 days. I do not see good reason for that. It therefore does not seem proportionate or reasonable for us to step in and investigate the Council’s decision-making in April 2024. So, I shall not investigate whether the Council decided the April 2024 medical assessment properly.
10. Miss X can make a new application for medical priority if she wants to give more information. Miss X was considering doing that in summer 2024. Any complaint about the Council’s handling of any new medical application was not part of the complaint Miss X put to the Council last year. So we will not consider any such complaint yet. Miss X should first use the Council’s review procedure on any new decision about medical priority before bringing it to us.
11. Miss X had difficulty filing her application online in September and October 2023. After that, the Council accepts it delayed dealing with the application, especially by taking no action from October 2023 to April 2024. I appreciate that caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. However, it would be disproportionate to investigate the delay when we are not investigating the substantive result of the application. Also, we have previously addressed with the Council its backlog of housing applications in that period, so there is nothing substantive to gain from us looking at the general problem again.
12. The Council also delayed progressing Miss X’s formal complaint. It apologised and offered Miss X £100. It is unlikely we would recommend more if we were to investigate. Also, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we cannot deal with the substantive issue.
13. The Council says other points in Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman - about disrepair, crime and antisocial behaviour near Miss X’s home – had not been through the Council’s complaint procedure. So we will not consider those points yet. Miss X should take through the Council’s complaint procedure a complaint about any of those matters she is dissatisfied with, if she believes they are the Council’s responsibility. However, it seems some of those matters might be responsibility of Miss X’s landlord, not the Council. We (and the Council) have no power to investigate the landlord’s actions.
14. Miss X says the Council made her homeless during the COVID-19 pandemic then delayed helping her. She says that was in 2020. The restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this part of the complaint, as Miss X did not complain to us until October 2024. I do not see good reason to accept this late complaint now. It is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about events so long ago. Furthermore, if the eviction was an eviction from Council social housing, the restriction in paragraph 5 would prevent us considering that point.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Involving the fraud section was not fault and did not in itself cause significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. Miss X could reasonably have used her review right if she disagreed with the Council’s decision on her medical circumstances. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s alleged delays when we are not investigating the underlying substantive matters. The Council has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to deal with some parts of the complaint to the Ombudsman. Part of the complaint is late without good reason to investigate it now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman