Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application of its housing policy as there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr T says for his client, Mr S, that the Council made him accept a housing placement under duress and has since removed his ability to bid for bigger properties, which he needs as his house is overcrowded.

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)

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint, the Council’s response, housing policy and Mr T’s comments on our draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr S and his family were previously homeless and this ended when they were housed by the Council in 2016. This ended the Council’s homelessness duty to the family. The property allocated was a two bedroom flat for Mr S, his partner and three young children. In the same year, Mr T wrote to the Council that the placement was accepted under duress, but he did not pursue the complaint. There is no reason for the Ombudsman to investigate this so long after the original event. Mr S was still able to bid for other social housing properties and retained a Band C priority rating on the Council’s housing register.
6. The Council wrote to Mr S in 2019 telling him he no longer has priority for housing need in the area and it moved him to band D, removing his ability to bid for houses through the Council. The Council said this should have happened 12 months after the homelessness duty finished but there was an administrative error.
7. Mr T contacted the Council to complain about the change of bands and loss of ability to bid on bigger properties. The Council agreed to review the housing needs of Mr S as he and his partner have had another child.
8. The Council completed a review of the family’s housing needs in 2020 and found the family to be one bedroom short, but this did not increase their priority for social housing.
9. The Council’s social housing policy says only households with severe overcrowding and lacking at least two bedrooms will be given priority for housing. The policy is available on its website, and it appears to have applied the policy correctly in Mr S’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because part of it is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now, and there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has applied its housing priority policy to warrant investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman