Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened when Mr X wanted social housing in the Council’s area. Any fault is unlikely to have caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. It is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view about whether the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not deal with him properly when he wanted to move into its area. He says this meant he has had to remain longer in his present home, where he reports fifth generation (5G) telecommunications masts damage his health.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives outside the Council’s area. The way to apply for social housing in the Council’s area is by completing the online application process. Mr X did not apply online but states he telephoned the Council twice. He reports the Council said both times he could not get social housing in South Staffordshire because he lacked a local connection. Mr X states he has a family connection to the area and anyway his main reason for wanting housing in South Staffordshire was medical.
6. We could not expect to reach a clear enough view on balance about whether the Council should have interpreted any such telephone calls as trying to apply for housing and signposted the online application process, or whether it was correct to treat the calls as simply seeking advice. Nor could we establish clearly enough now whether the advice Mr X says the Council gave was appropriate in the context of the information the Council had.
7. On 20 June 2021, Mr X emailed the Council about various matters, including saying the Council had refused him ‘both times.’ On 24 June the Council asked Mr X to clarify what he was referring to. Mr X says he made clear to the Council he was seeking housing. From the correspondence, I have not seen that was necessarily clear enough to the Council at first. The Council’s two responses to Mr X’s formal complaint in December 2021 gave Mr X the website details to apply for housing. Arguably, the Council might have supplied those details sooner. However, as:
1. Mr X did not apply after the Council supplied the details, and
2. Mr X told me he has now changed his mind about wanting to move to South Staffordshire due to there being 5G masts there,

any delay in the Council advising how to apply for social housing did not disadvantage Mr X significantly enough in practical terms for the Ombudsman to investigate. In that context, any frustration or uncertainty Mr X might have felt while awaiting the Council’s response was not a significant enough injustice in itself to warrant investigation.

8. Also, as Mr X told me he no longer wants to live in the Council’s area, investigation of what happened when he previously considered that possibility would be a disproportionate use of the Ombudsman’s time and public money as it would be unlikely to lead to a meaningful result in practical terms.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any fault is unlikely to have caused Mr X a significant injustice in practical terms. Investigation is also unlikely to reach a clear enough view about whether the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman