The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A man complained that when he made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council provided inaccurate information about its reasons for housing him. But we will not investigate this matter because the complaint has been made late.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council gave us inaccurate information when we considered a previous complaint he made to us last year. In particular, Mr B complained the Council falsely said it had provided him with interim accommodation as a goodwill gesture, whereas it had a duty to accommodate him under Section 188 of the Housing Act 1996. As a result Mr B felt the Council should amend its records and apologise.
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 an investigation if, for example, we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We normally 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint. I also took account of documents regarding Mr B’s housing case which the Council sent us in response to our enquiries about his complaint.
My assessment
I consider that we should not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because he has complained to us late and, as a result, the restriction on our jurisdiction which I refer to in paragraph 2 above applies in his case.
In particular, I note that our decision about Mr B’s previous complaint, which referred to the Council placing him in temporary accommodation as a goodwill gesture, was issued in September 2021. So Mr B would have been aware at that point at the latest that the Council had made a statement he disagreed with. However, he did not complain to us about this matter until October 2022.
I am also not convinced there are any grounds for us to exercise our discretion and investigate Mr B’s complaint now despite it being late. In particular Mr B has not provided any good reason why he did not complain to us in the 12 months after he became aware of his issue with the Council.
But in any event, even if the Council was at fault as Mr B suggests and he had complained to us about this in good time, I do not see we would have had reason to pursue his complaint due to lack of injustice. In particular, I consider that whether the Council provided the accommodation to Mr B on a goodwill basis or under a Section 188 duty made no difference to the outcome regarding his housing or our decision about his previous complaint.
Final Decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council provided inaccurate information about his housing in relation to a previous complaint he made to us last year. This is because Mr B has complained late about this matter and there are no good reasons for us to exercise discretion and pursue his case now.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman