The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s complaints about the social landlord’s management of her tenancy and the behaviour of her neighbours. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints by tenants about their social housing landlords. we will not investigate her complaint about the assessment of her housing transfer application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the original offer of her tenancy by her social housing landlord eight years ago. She also says her current location is unsuitable because she is affected by any outside noise from neighbours and this has led to complaints and disability discrimination by her neighbours. She says she needs to move to accommodation without neighbour noise and needs a higher banding to secure a move.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says she accepted her current social housing tenancy 8 years ago but did so only because she would have been removed from the housing register at the time. she says it is unsuitable because she is disturbed by any outside noise which affects her autism and her mental health. She has applied for rehousing on the Council’s Homechoice shared housing register and is currently awarded band B status.
Miss X says she needs higher priority and should be considered for a proper custom-built for her needs. She complained to her landlord about her neighbours who were harassing her. The landlord investigated and concluded that there was no harassment and that her behaviour had caused a response from neighbours.
We have no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of social housing landlords. miss X is a social housing tenant and we cannot consider her complaints about her neighbours and her landlord because this falls within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman Service. Her landlord referred her to that service in July 2022.
We can consider the assessment of the housing application which Miss X has submitted. I have considered the assessment against the Homechoice policy and Band B is the appropriate banding for her circumstances. Miss X has had two opportunities to have the banding reviewed and each time it has remained unchanged.
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.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s complaints about the social landlord’s management of her tenancy and the behaviour of her neighbours. We have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints by tenants about their social housing landlords. we will not investigate her complaint about the assessment of her housing transfer application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman