Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council handled her housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She said the Council:
• suspended her application without reason and failed to backdate her time on the housing register;
• failed to increase her priority banding and disregarded additional evidence she submitted to support her case including her family’s unsuitable living conditions;
• communicated poorly and lacked transparency throughout her application process; and
• responded to her freedom of information request by providing irrelevant data.
2. Ms X said this caused avoidable distress and worsened her health, and left her feeling powerless and unable to care for her family. Ms X wants the Council to reassess her case, adjust her housing priority banding, backdate her time on the housing register, improve communication, and explore alternative housing options.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In September 2023, Ms X contacted the Council and submitted a housing application, believing she was at risk of losing her home due to issues with her landlord.
7. The Council accepted the prevention duty and placed her on the housing register under Priority Band C. By April 2024, it seemed a resolution had been reached between Ms X and her landlord. The Council decided she was no longer at risk of homelessness and ended the prevention duty.
8. Two days later, Ms X’s landlord issued a Section 21 notice. She requested a review of the prevention duty closure, and the Council accepted a new application and reopened the prevention duty.

Suspension of Housing Application and Housing Register

9. Ms X thought the ending of prevention duty also ended her housing application and requested a review.
10. The Council confirmed Ms X’s housing register application had remained active since September 2023 and was unaffected by the prevention duty closure. The Council acted in accordance with the Housing Act 1996 when a person is threatened with homelessness. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Priority Banding

11. Ms X complained the Council failed to increase her priority banding and disregarded additional evidence she submitted in support of her case.
12. We will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint. When Ms X first applied, the Council awarded her Priority Band C. If Ms X was unhappy with the Council's initial banding decision she could have asked for a review. There is no evidence she did that. In December 2024, the Council reassessed and increased her priority to Band B. If there was any delay in the Council completing the medical assessment, Ms X would need to make a new complaint before we could consider it.

Poor communication and lack of transparency

13. Ms X complained the Council communicated poorly with her, stating that multiple housing officers contacted her, often requesting the same information.
14. The Council acknowledged that during a home visit, it failed to record specific evidence Ms X had provided. As a result, further requests were made for the same evidence. In its October 2024 complaint response, the Council partially upheld Ms X’s complaint, admitting this error and apologising. It also confirmed that staff training would be implemented to ensure records were updated after each interview and visit. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Freedom of Information Act request

15. In September 2024, Ms X submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking a summary of 50 cases in which applicants requested housing due to pending eviction notices. She stated that the Council’s response was irrelevant and unhelpful.
16. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint as there is another body better placed to look at this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman