Birmingham City Council (20 003 360)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: A housing applicant complained that the Council had unreasonably suspended her from bidding for accommodation on the basis she had refused two property offers. But the Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of this matter. This is because the Council has now retracted its bidding suspension in the woman’s case and is allowing her a further offer.
The complaint
- The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained that the Council had unreasonably suspended her from bidding for a social housing property through its housing register on the basis she had refused two offers of accommodation. In particular Mrs B said she was never offered one of the properties in question.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we consider the Council has already taken suitable action to address the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered the information Mrs B’s representative provided with her complaint, the representative’s comments when we spoke on the telephone, and her further comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also took account of the Council’s response to my enquiries in Mrs B’s case.
What I found
- Mrs B joined the Council’s housing register in 2019. This meant she could make bids for social housing properties advertised through the Council’s Birmingham Choice scheme.
- The Council’s policy is that housing register applicants are entitled to two property offers. But if the applicant refuses two suitable offers they will be suspended from bidding for 12 months.
- In November 2019 Mrs B was offered a flat she had made a bid for. However she did not accept the property after a viewing and it was offered to someone else. Mrs B said the Council did not properly explain that it would be carrying out repairs to the flat. But the Council counted this as a refusal of a suitable property.
- In December 2019 Mrs B was invited to view another property she had made a bid for. But Mrs B said that on the way to the viewing the Council phoned her to cancel the appointment because the person who came first in the bidding had accepted the property.
- However in January 2020 the Council wrote to Mrs B saying she had been disqualified from the housing register for 12 months because she had refused two suitable offers.
- Mrs B asked the Council to review this decision. But the Council upheld its suspension decision following a review. Mrs B’s representative then made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
- However in response to my enquiries in Mrs B’s case the Council reviewed matters again and accepted that she had not refused the second property. As a result the Council restored Mrs B’s right to make bids and confirmed that she would be allowed another offer of a property.
Analysis
- In the circumstances I consider that we do not have sufficient reason to start an investigation in Mrs B’s case.
- In particular I consider the Council has now taken appropriate action to address Mrs B’s complaint by acknowledging it should not have decided that she had refused the second property offer, and by reinstating her right to make bids for alternative accommodation.
- As a result I do not see we would be justified in investigating Mrs B’s complaint as the Council has already taken suitable action to remedy matters in in her case.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council unreasonably suspended her from bidding for social housing properties. This is because the Council has now reversed its suspension decision and allowed Mrs B another property offer, and I consider this is a suitable remedy for her complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman