Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about housing allocation. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, says that he has been unfairly denied a property that he bid on and says the allocation process is corrupt.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council and sent him a draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X has a family of eight. He is on the Council’s housing register and is seeking a permanent home in the borough.
7. He says he has twice (once in 2008 and again in 2019) been first on the list of bidders for a Council property.
8. In 2008 he accepted a property but was then told it had gone to someone else.
9. The Ombudsman is not able to consider a complaint about this property as the complainant was aware of this more than 12 months ago. I have considered whether to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to look at this now but there are no good reasons for me to do so.
10. In 2019 Mr X was first on the list for a 3-bed property but after accepting it, he was told it was too small for his family and therefore unsuitable.
11. He says the decision not to allocate the property was unfair and that other families of similar size have been offered 3-bed properties.
12. He says the allocation process is generally corrupt.
13. He questions why he has never been successful in bidding for a 4-5 bed property.
14. Mr X says as a result of his inability to obtain a council property in the borough his health and that of his family has suffered and his work has also been affected.
15. The Council says that the property Mr X bid on in 2019 was unsuitable as it was too small and his family would have been statutorily overcrowded in it.
16. It says the decision not to house him in an unsuitable property was in line with its policy.
17. The Council says that offers of housing depend on the circumstances of each family and the specifics of the property.
18. It says a different 3-bed property may therefore be suitable for Mr X and his family.
19. There is no evidence of fault by the Council as it has followed its policy.
20. Mr X has not offered evidence to support his allegation of corruption in the allocation system.

Back to top

Final Decision

21. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to uncover evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman