Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not arranging a housing transfer to smaller accommodation over several years, and its decision not to provide a discretionary housing payment (DHP). This is because we cannot investigate the Council’s actions as landlord, parts of the complaint are late without good reason, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s most recent decision making to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling over many years of:
1. her request to transfer to different social housing accommodation;
2. repairs and maintenance of her current accommodation; and
3. her request for a discretionary housing payment to cover excess rent because she occupies accommodation too large for her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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))
6. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X is a council tenant and the only occupant of three-bedroom accommodation. The housing element of her universal credit is reduced by 25% because of this. Miss X is also unhappy about the condition of the property. The Council has accepted Miss X’s request for a transfer to smaller accommodation, but says she has not engaged with its efforts to provide alternative accommodation.
10. Miss X has complaints about her housing conditions and discretionary housing payment (DHP) applications dating back to 2021. The Council confirmed it replied to these complaints. We cannot investigate its actions as a landlord, including to do with the transfer application and repairs or maintenance. There is no good reason Miss X could not have complained to us earlier, so we will not consider elements of her complaint we have power to, but which are late.
11. I have considered Miss X’s complaint about the Council declining her DHP application for the 2024/25 financial year, as this matter happened within the last 12 months.
12. The Council considered Miss X’s application and supporting information, and decided not to agree because:
• It previously provided DHP awards to support Miss X with moving to another property, but her situation has still not changed.
• Miss X had not attended property viewings, not answered her phone so it could arrange viewings, and declined offers of accommodation. The Council said it was not satisfied Miss X had any intent to move.
• DHP awards are not a continuing benefit but a short term solution to enable an applicant to resolve their immediate difficulties.
• Previous awards of DHP do not guarantee the Council would make a further award even if the applicant’s circumstances have not changed.
13. This information shows the Council properly considered Miss X’s application and circumstances before deciding to decline the application, even if she disagrees with the result. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify us investigating.
14. We are not an appeal body, so we have no power to criticise or overturn the Council’s decision itself. It is a decision the Council made properly in line with its policy and the discretion it gives.
15. Miss X also complained one of her rooms has been classed as a bedroom because she says it does not meet the minimum requirements for a bedroom. The Council confirmed it has measured the room to reassess it, but it is satisfied the room exceeds the minimum size to be counted as a bedroom. There is no evidence of fault in the way it decided that. If Miss X wishes to challenge any decision the Department for Work and Pensions has made about her entitlement to the housing element of Universal Credit it would be reasonable for her to take the matter up with that Department. The Council has already accepted Miss X’s application for a housing transfer because she occupies too large a property, regardless of whether she has one or two bedrooms too many.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we cannot investigate the Council’s actions as landlord, parts of the complaint are late without good reason, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s most recent decision making to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman