The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mrs Y complained the Council has prioritised homeless people for direct matches to properties ahead of her family, despite her being awarded band A and Band B priority due to her child’s exceptional needs.
Mrs Y says this puts her children at risk every day in a property that is unsafe for them and is unfair.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s complaint response explains her priority award, of Band A: Exceptional Circumstances and Band B: Medical due to her child’s needs. It explained that the Council had recommended ground floor accommodation to suit her child’s needs but confirmed that this did not prevent her from bidding on houses.
The Council also explained that direct matches are offered in extreme exceptional circumstances, at the discretion of its management and that while in some cases this included homeless people, the majority of homeless people were not offered a direct match. It also explained how housing was regularly oversubscribed which often led to a lack of supply. Mrs Y then approached us.
I have considered this correspondence and the Council’s housing allocations policy. The policy shows that there are several different factors which the Council can consider when considering whether a discretionary match should be made directly. This considers many different factors and does not give priority to those who are homeless specifically.
We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
In this case, the Council has assessed Mrs Y’s case and awarded her Band A and Band B priority in accordance with its scheme. While she may have a high priority banding, the Council must prioritise its housing according to its policy, including suitability for each candidate, and would not be at fault for using discretion in some cases, which we do not have the details of, above Mrs Y’s as described in its policy. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman