The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council changing Miss X and Mr Y’s priority for rehousing. They could reasonably have asked the Council for a review of the change. The change is unlikely, on balance, to have caused significant injustice. The alleged damage to their health is a matter for the courts.
The complaint
Mr Y complains in his own right and for his partner Miss X that the Council moved their housing application from Band A to Band C and changed their priority date. He argues this means they and their children are remaining in overcrowded accommodation longer than necessary and their health has been damaged.
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainants.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X and Mr Y had been on the housing register for several years with Band A priority due to overcrowding of the property where they and their children live. Around September 2021 their home was included in a demolition plan. The Council moved their application to Band C, which it says is for demolition situations. The Council did not tell Miss X and Mr Y about the change or about their legal right to ask the Council to review that decision. The Council accepts that was fault. On 7 November 2022 the Council wrote to Miss X and Mr Y apologising for that fault, explaining the review right and giving Miss X and Mr Y 21 days to seek a review.
I have seen no evidence Miss X and Mr Y sought a review. They complained to us on 15 November 2022. They argue they should have kept their previous priority. They believe if they had remained in Band A, they might have got a property they bid for in September 2022, though that is necessarily speculative.
The Council’s reinstatement of the review right put Miss X and Mr Y back in the position they should have been in when their priority changed. So that was a suitable remedy for the failure to tell them promptly about the change and the review right. It is reasonable to expect applicants to use the review right the law provides. If Miss X and Mr Y were dissatisfied with the change in their priority, they could reasonably have used the review right once they knew about it. So it is not for us to comment on whether the Council was correct to change their priority.
Also, the Council explained to Miss X and Mr Y that, while Band C might seem lower than Band A, the different numbers of people in each band and the different percentages of vacant properties available for each band means they are likely to be rehoused quicker now than if they had remained in Band A. From the Council’s explanation, that reasoning does not appear flawed. So even if there was fault in changing their priority (and I have not taken a view on that), it seems unlikely, on balance, to have caused a significant injustice.
Miss X and Mr Y also allege damage to their health. They want compensation for this. This is essentially a personal injury claim, so the restriction in paragraph 3 applies. Questions of liability for negligence and injury, causation and assessing compensation are not straightforward legally. That is especially the case here, where the claimed health damage seems to stem from the overcrowding itself, which the Council has not directly caused, as well as from the claimed impact of the Council’s actions. It is more appropriate for the courts than the Ombudsman to decide such matters. It is reasonable in the circumstances to expect the complainants to go to court if they want a ruling on this point.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X and Mr Y’s complaint. They could reasonably have asked the Council for a review. The change to their banding is unlikely, on balance, to have caused significant injustice. The alleged damage to their health is a matter for the courts.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman