The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing register application. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained the Council: Had not completed her priority banding review; Communicated with her poorly; and Handled her complaint poorly.
She wanted the Council to review her priority banding.
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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council can award a higher priority to a person on their housing register for various reasons.
In this case it decided Miss X was not eligible for a higher priority and she asked for a review. She complained to us as this was not completed.
The Council has since reviewed Miss X’s priority banding. Miss X has therefore achieved the outcome she was seeking. I also note the Council upheld its earlier decision. Therefore, any delay did not cause significant injustice.
It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about poor communication and complaints procedures if we are not investigating the substantive issues.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman