Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to offer a property to him and to move his housing application to a lower priority band. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, complained about the Council’s decision not to offer a property to him and to move his housing application to a lower priority band.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mr C has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr C told us his family needs to move because their accommodation is overcrowded and because of his partner’s medical needs. The Council placed their transfer application in band C.
8. Mr C placed a bid for a council property which he believed would meet his family’s needs. He told us an occupational therapist assessed the property as being suitable. But, after the family had waited more than five years for a move, the Council then decided not to offer the property to them. The Council moved the application to band D, a lower priority band in its allocations policy. Mr C said it feels like no-one took his state of mind into consideration when making that decision. He told us the Council’s decision caused stress and upset to his family and it had a significant detrimental effect on his and his partner’s mental health.
9. Every local housing authority must publish a housing allocation scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make their allocations of social housing in accordance with their published scheme. We are not an appeal body with powers to overrule councils’ decisions on an applicant’s priority and whether to proceed with an offer of accommodation to a shortlisted applicant. Our role is to look at the way a council has reached its decisions. If there is not enough evidence of fault by a council, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong.
10. Before going ahead with an offer of accommodation to a housing transfer applicant, the Council’s allocation policy says the Council will check the applicant’s compliance with tenancy conditions.
11. In April 2021 the Council wrote to Mr C and his partner. The Council listed the breaches of tenancy conditions it had recorded over the previous two and a half years. The Council said they had not conducted their tenancy in a satisfactory manner. That was the reason for its refusal to offer them the property they had bid for and for moving their application to band D. The Council said Mr C could ask for a review of its decision and it would carry out a further review in 12 months’ time subject to satisfactory conduct of their current tenancy during that period.
12. Mr C requested a review of the Council’s decision and provided evidence in support of his review request. The Council accepted his review request and told him its deadline for completion of its review.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation of this complaint. The Council has applied its allocation policy and explained the reasons for its decision to Mr C. It accepted his request for a review of its decision. It has said it will review the situation 12 months after its April 2021 decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman