The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s priority on the Council’s housing register. We would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view now about some events in 2020. On other points there is not enough evidence of fault.
The complaint
Mr X complains about how the Council changed its housing register. He says this deprived him of several years’ waiting time priority, preventing him being shortlisted for properties and meaning he will have to wait longer for a property.
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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In 2020 the Council closed its old housing register and began a new one. Councils are entitled to do this. Applicants on the old register had to reregister in 2020 if they still wanted to be registered and to include their accumulated waiting time priority on the new register. There is no fault in that, in principle.
Mr X did not reregister, he states because he was unaware he needed to. The Council therefore closed Mr X’s application in 2020. Mr X reapplied in 2022. I understand Mr X recently discovered his new application only has waiting time priority accumulated since 2022, not the earlier priority from his previous application.
The Council says in 2020 it put a message about the need to reregister on the website applicants bidding for properties would use. It says it also sent an email in 2020 to every applicant whose email address it had, explaining the need to reregister. The Council says it would have sent such an email to Mr X. Mr X says he did not receive that email.
It is not for the Ombudsman to say precisely how the Council should have publicised the change. So it is unlikely any investigation by us would fault the Council for choosing to publicise the change by a message on its housing register website plus an email.
Mr X reports he did not receive the email. That, in itself, does not show the Council was at fault. An email might be sent but not arrive or might be stuck in the recipient’s spam or junk email filter. We cannot expect to reach a clear enough view now about whether the Council sent an email to Mr X’s address four years ago.
Given the volume of housing applicants the Council has, it is also unlikely any investigation by us would fault the Council for not chasing up every applicant who had not reregistered in time.
Therefore any investigation by us now is unlikely, on balance, to find enough evidence of fault by Council in 2020.
After Mr X contacted the Council about the matter more recently, the Council considered his request for reinstatement of his previous waiting time priority now. It declined that request. Its reasoning included the length of time since 2020, during which Mr X had neither sought to bid for housing (in which case he would have discovered his old application was closed) nor made a new application until September 2022, two years after the change. That decision was properly reached, so I cannot criticise it although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Investigation would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view now about some events in 2020. On other points there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman