The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly allocated a house to a single man. This is because there is no sign of fault with the Council’s allocation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start 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 Mr B’s complaint correspondence. I also took account of information from the Council about its property allocation. In addition, I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B complained to the Council that Mr X, a social housing tenant, was responsible for causing a noise nuisance. In the course of his complaint Mr B also queried the Council’s justification for offering a two-bedroom house with a garden to Mr X, who is a single man. Mr B also suspected the offer was related to Mr B owning dogs.
In response the Council said it had nominated Mr B for the property in line with its Allocations Policy and the allocation had nothing to do with his dog-ownership. But the Council said could not go into detail about Mr X’s circumstances for data protection reasons. The Council also pointed out it was not feasible to vet housing applications concerning the behaviour of applicants’ pets.
Following Mr B’s complaint I made enquiries to the Council about its property allocation. In response it provided more details about its reasons for nominating Mr X for the property. I am also restricted by data protection legislation from revealing any personal information about Mr X. But from the evidence I have seen I am satisfied the Council nominated Mr X for the house in accordance with its Allocations Policy.
In the circumstances I do not see there is sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter to justify us starting an investigation in Mr B’s case.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council had wrongly offered the next-door, social housing property to a man who did not qualify for the offer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman