Monday 19 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to take new Public Service Complaints or provide updates on cases. We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including next week.

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website.

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision report 200904505

  • Case ref:
    200904505
  • Date:
    July 2011
  • Body:
    Fife Housing Register
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, action taken by body to remedy, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Applications, allocations, transfers and exchanges

Summary
Mr C wanted to move house and applied to Fife Housing Register (FHR). He was allocated a certain number of housing points based on his circumstances, but when he appealed about the number of points awarded, these were reduced. Mr C complained to us that FHR removed medical points from his housing application and disregarded information from medical experts in support of his case. Our investigation found that there was an error in the initial handling of Mr C's housing application and we upheld the complaint. Because of the mistake he had wrongly been given two awards of points for the same housing need. One of these awards entitled him to more points than the other. FHR confirmed that Mr C was only due one award of points for that housing need and withdrew the higher award of points. When Mr C appealed, FHR re-examined his application and, although they confirmed that he was only entitled to one award of points, they decided that it should be the higher of the two he was originally awarded. Our investigation found that the outcome of the appeal had corrected the situation, in accordance with the pointing scheme, and that medical information had been taken into account along with housing need. Although Mr C still felt he should have a higher allocation of points, we took the view that FHR had sorted out their original mistake and had made sure that he now had no more and no fewer points than he was entitled to. As FHR also explained that they had learned from Mr C's case and had taken remedial action to improve their processes, we did not make any recommendations.

Updated: March 13, 2018