Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time it is taking for the Council to offer the complainant a larger home. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains he is a victim of discrimination and the Council will not re-house him even though he has three priority factors on the housing register.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X lives in a three bedroom house with his wife and four children. He is on the housing register and needs a four bedroom home. In 2012 the Council awarded overcrowding priority and it awarded medical priority in 2019. It decided in 2019 to make a direct offer because Mr X had been experiencing racial harassment. The Council also fitted additional security measures and offered CCTV.
5. Since 2012 Mr X has applied for 53 properties and received eight offers. These have been a mixture of three and four bedroom properties. The Council offers a three bedroom house if there is a downstairs room that could be used as a bedroom. Mr X did not accept any of the offers. The Council says that since 2012 there have been 76, four bedroom properties, that Mr X could have applied for.
6. The Council made two direct offers. One was a three bedroom house with a downstairs room which could be used as a bedroom. Mr X declined the offer as he did not think one of the children should have to sleep downstairs. Mr X declined the second direct offer which was a four bedroom house. He said people who had racially abused him live in the area. He also said the property needed decorating. The Council offered support with decorating but Mr X refused due to his concerns about racial abuse.
7. In February the Council identified a four bedroom house which it will offer to Mr X when repairs have been completed. Mr X initially declined the house due to the location but the Council says it is in an area which Mr X had previously said was suitable. The Council has explained to Mr X that it does not have many four bedroom homes.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has awarded Mr X priority on the housing register to reflect his circumstances and need to move. It has made offers, following bids he placed, and might have made more offers if Mr X had applied for more of the 76 homes he could have applied for. It has also made two direct offers and identified another home which it will offer when the repairs have been completed. The Council has also explained that it does not have many four bedroom homes which is why it offers three bedroom homes where there is an extra room downstairs. There is nothing to suggest fault or discrimination in the way the Council has handled Mr X’s housing application. In addition, we have no power to get Mr X re-housed.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman