The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault on the Council’s part which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing priority when she applied as homeless. She says her landlord issued her with a notice to quit and the Council gave her advice about her housing priority which was inconsistent.
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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says the Council gave her unhelpful information about her housing priority when she applied to it as being potentially homeless following her private landlord issuing a notice to quit her home. The Council told her in a phone call that she would be accepted under the Council’s homelessness prevention duty and that she would be allocated band B priority. However, shortly afterwards she received an email confirming she was allocated band C priority.
The Council says that although applicants who are accepted under the main housing duty qualify for band B status, applicants to whom the prevention duty is owed only qualify for band C. the Council apologised for any misunderstanding caused in its telephone call but says that she was given the correct banding on her application of band C and this was confirmed by email.
I have read the Council’s housing allocations policy and this conforms that the band C award for being under the homelessness prevention duty was the correct banding. If Miss X is accepted under the main housing duty her banding will automatically be changed to band B. the Council advised Miss X that she would be considered for interim accommodation under the relief duty if her landlord pursued a possession order.
Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
In this case any confusion about the banding priority was clarified by email and Miss X received an explanation in response to her complaints about the matter a few weeks later. The waiting time for offers for both band B and band C applicants is a matter of years and the misunderstanding did not cause any significant injustice as it did not affect her bidding position.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault on the Council’s part which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman