Summary: Ms X complained about the Council refusing her application for rehousing. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the Council refusing to allow her application any priority on the housing waiting list. She says her flat is overcrowded since her husband moved in and she needs a bigger property without stairs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Ms X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X applied to the Council for rehousing because she lives in a studio flat and her husband has recently joined her. She lives in a social housing flat and in the past her landlord threatened to evict her for rent arrears and breach of tenancy conditions.
5. The Council told Ms X that she does not have any priority to join the waiting list. Her current home is big enough for a couple without being statutory overcrowded. She was assessed for medical circumstances, but this did not give her any priority because there was insufficient medical housing need. The Council told her that her landlord is no longer seeking possession of her home and so she has no reasonable preference priority for rehousing under the Housing Act 1996.
6. The Council reviewed its decision on Ms X’s complaint at her request. It told her she may be eligible to be considered for larger private rented accommodation, but she does not want this. The Council offered to carry out a further review but she has not taken up this offer.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. We will not uphold a complaint if a council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information the complainant provided.

Back to top

Final Draft decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman