Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to increase Miss X’s housing list priority following threats by her neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council refusing to give her housing application Band 1 status because she has been threatened by her neighbour. She says she does not wish to be moved to alternative temporary accommodation and should be offered the highest banding on the housing register which would enable her to seek a permanent tenancy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.

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

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. Miss X lives in temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homeless duty. Recently her neighbour, who is a Council tenant, threatened to kill her following an issue about her son making noise in the stairwell. She says she is too frightened to remain in the property even though the Police arrested the tenant and the Council’s housing ASB team is involved.
7. Miss X asked the Council to move her current priority banding from Band 2 to Band 1 so that she has a better chance of being rehoused permanently. The Council told her that she does not qualify for Band 1 under the published allocations scheme. If someone applies to the Council as being threatened with violence the priority is to move them away from the threat for their safety. Under the homeless duty this could be anywhere within the borough in temporary accommodation.
8. The Council has advised Miss X to be moved to alternative temporary accommodation if she is concerned about her neighbour. Miss X says she does not wish to undergo the upheaval to another temporary address and wants to be given higher banding priority. The Council says this would not address the threat from her neighbour as being in a higher banding would leave her in the same situation, possibly for a considerable time and so an immediate move is the only alternative.
9. The Council had a duty to ensure Miss X was moved away from the threat of violence and it has offered to do this. Miss X’s banding on the housing list is not relevant to the threat to her safety and changing this would not be an appropriate means of addressing the situation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to increase Miss X’s housing list priority following threats by her neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman