The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council's handling of his housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making and the Council have provided a suitable remedy for the poor communication and delay.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council's handling of his housing register application. He says the Council delayed processing his application, repeatedly requested information and wrongly refused his application without considering his household’s medical needs after deciding his savings exceeded the threshold to join the housing register. Mr X says the Council should have treated his circumstances as exceptional and allowed him onto the housing register despite his savings.
Mr X also complains the Council sent letters containing his personal information to the wrong address.
Finally, Mr X complains about the Council's complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) 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.
We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register. The Council considered his application and decided he was not eligible to join because his savings and assets exceeded the threshold. Mr X says the threshold should not be applied to him because he previously served in another country’s armed forces and the Council’s policy grants an exemption to the savings threshold for those who have served in the armed forces. The Council explained the armed forces exemption only applied to those who served in the UK armed forces.
The Council’s policy includes reference to service in the regular forces, reserve forces and, in some sections, Her Majesty's Armed Forces. These are statutory terms used in the legislation governing housing allocations for members of the UK armed forces. There is insufficient evidence the Council misapplied its policy when deciding the exemption only applied to people who have served in the UK forces.
The Council also considered whether there were exceptional circumstances which justified departing from its policy and decided there were not. The Council was entitled to reach that view, and I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made that decision.
Mr X said the Council failed to consider his health needs and the health needs of his daughter. Mr X's household’s health needs would be relevant to the assessment of his housing need and any priority banding award. However, because Mr X did not qualify for the housing register the Council was not required to assess what priority he may otherwise have been awarded.
The Council accepted there were delays in processing Mr X’s application, responding to requests for a telephone call and confusion about the status of the application. It upheld those complaints and apologised. The injustice arising from the delay is distress and frustration. The Council has apologised to Mr X, and an apology is a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint. There is insufficient remaining injustice and further investigation into the delay would not lead to a different outcome.
The Council accepted some letters were sent to the wrong address due to officer error and apologised. Complaints about the handling of personal information are better considered by the Information Commissioner's Office, which has specialist powers and expertise in this area. There is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead.
Mr X also complains of poor complaint handling. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issues.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making and the Council have provided a suitable remedy for the poor communication and delay.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman