Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the offer he was made for a council tenancy. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council offering him an introductory tenancy for a flat he was offered as a homeless applicant. He wanted an assurance that he would be able to carry out improvements to the flat before he accepted the tenancy, but the Council told him this was not possible. He refused the flat and subsequently was told the Council had discharged its housing duty to him.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X was offered a council tenancy for a flat when he was in a homeless situation. The flat he was offered did not meet his standards and he asked if he could make alterations to the lay out and placement of the radiators and storage before accepting the offer. The Council advised him that its offers are for introductory tenancies for the first 12 months and only if he was given a secure tenancy after that would he be able to request permission for alterations. The Council could not give him the undertakings he required before signing the agreement, so Mr X chose to decline the offer.
7. The Council gave Mr X a notice that it has discharged its housing duty to him under homeless legislation because he had refused a reasonable offer. Mr X exercised his right to have the decision reviewed. The Council upheld the appeal and he has been re-instated on the housing list in band A.
8. There was no fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s request for permission to make alterations. This right of secure tenants is not available for introductory tenants under the Housing Act 1996. He could have accepted the appeal and requested necessary alterations but there is not requirement for the landlord to allow this. The Council acted reasonably in considering it had discharged its duty but it used its discretion to allow his application to be re-instated because of his circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the offer he was made for a council tenancy. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman