The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s increased use of direct offers of permanent social housing in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s increased use of direct offers of permanent social housing in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. He says he was disadvantaged by the Council’s actions as he was denied access to a property as it was likely he would have been successful in his bidding during the period.
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)) This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council/ followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s housing allocations policy outlines that not all properties that become available will be advertised and offered through the choice based letting process. It also notes that not all properties will be allocated by band and date order.
The policy outlines some of the different circumstances for when the Council can make a direct offering of housing outside of the choice-based lettings and outside of the band and date order criteria set out within the allocations policy.
Therefore, the Council has discretion to make a direct offer of housing outside of the choice based letting system.
The Council has explained to Mr X why it made more direct offers of housing during the pandemic period. The Council said due to the circumstances of the pandemic, it focused more on homeless families, rough sleepers, those in accommodation with shared facilities (as it did not allow for effective social distancing), those occupying properties on derelict estates awaiting demolition, and those in high-cost temporary accommodation within the private sector.
While we note Mr X is not happy with the explanation given by the Council and feels it does not adequately explain the increased use of direct offers, it was for the Council to decide whether it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to make direct offers.
As the Ombudsman’s role is to review how the Council made its decision. We cannot criticise or find fault with a Council’s decision if there was no fault in the way it was made. There is little evidence of any fault here as the Council has explained its rationale for increasing the use of direct offers during the COVID-19 pandemic period. The Council was entitled to use its discretion after consideration of the relevant issues.
I have carefully considered Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response and I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the issues Mr X raised. Therefore, I will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman