The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s bids for housing. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council is wrongly punishing her for refusing a property by not inviting her to view any more properties. She says this means she and her family continue experiencing inconvenience and stress from overcrowded living conditions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says she bids every week for housing. Last year she was shortlisted and invited to view three of the properties she bid for. She did not take any of them. Miss X declined the third of those properties after viewing it because she considered it unsafe for her youngest children. Since then, Miss X says she the Council has not invited her to any more viewings. She suggests this is because the Council is annoyed at her refusal so is punishing her.
The Council denies that. Its housing allocations policy does not provide for the Council to sanction an applicant who refuses a property after bidding for it. The Council says Miss X still has the same priority for housing that she had before. The Council also says given how long Miss X has been waiting, she has a realistic prospect of being successful if she continues bidding widely as much as possible.
I do not see enough evidence of fault to warrant investigating. Miss X’s view that, because she was shortlisted before the refusal it must be wrong that she has not been shortlisted since, is speculative.
I note Miss X was only invited to three viewings in several months last year, although she would have bid for more than three properties. The Council’s policy envisages that a shortlisted applicant might view a property then turn it down. Given the large number of applicants the Council is dealing with, it seems unlikely the Council would have singled Miss X out and decided to disadvantage her for refusing a property, when such refusals often happen. It seems more likely that properties she has bid for since have gone to other bidders with more priority.
There is not enough reason to suspect fault by the Council. It would therefore be disproportionate to investigate why Miss X’s bids since the last refusal have not resulted in viewings.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough reason to suspect fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman