The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to offer him suitable accommodation since he was placed on an urgent banding in 2019. He says he has been unsuccessful in any bids he has made on 3-bedroom houses since then.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))
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 says he has been on the Council’s housing register since 2019 when he was awarded an ‘urgent ‘case assessment under its previous housing policy which used a points -based system. He has been bidding on three-bedroomed houses since then without success. He complained to the Council about the shortage of suitable vacancies to bid on and its change of the system from points to banding. He says he should be in the highest banding but is only in Band B.
The Council explained to Mr X that although the naming of his banding has changed from Urgent to Band B this has not affected his priority on the list. There are still applicants ahead of him in his own banding and Band A is reserved only for emergency housing cases such as persons unable to leave hospital without being rehoused or those on witness protection schemes who have to be moved immediately.
The Council reviewed Mr X’s case and Band B is the highest banding he can be in according to his current circumstances. Because he is a social housing tenant, he is able to apply for a mutual exchange which is not available to private tenants on the housing register.
We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the applicant believes that the council should have given more priority to the application to move. It may be the case that, although they need to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need.
We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman