Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the process for offering a new home to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve the outcome the complainant would like.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council did not process his bid for a property correctly. He wants the Council to re-offer the property, pay compensation, and change its procedures.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and an email from the Council giving a deadline for Mr X to accept the property. I considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X successfully applied for a property from the housing register. He viewed the flat during void works in June and had a second viewing. Although Mr X told the Council he wanted the flat he did not formally accept it because he was not satisfied the flat was structurally sound, in a good condition, and asbestos free.
5. On 27 September the Council sent an email which addressed many of Mr X’s concerns, said the flat was sound and that changes he wanted would be his responsibility. The Council told him it would supply the asbestos report if he accepted the flat. The Council told Mr X he needed to accept the flat by 4pm on 28 September. Mr X did not accept the flat by the deadline and on 29 September the Council told him it had offered the property to someone else.
6. Mr X has made many complaints. For example, he is not satisfied that the voids surveyor was properly qualified to assess the structural integrity of the flat. He says the Council did not give him a deadline to accept the flat and he says he was not given the asbestos report or other documents. He wants the Council to make many changes to the way people bid for properties. He also wants the Council to offer him the flat.
7. In response to his complaint the Council said he was given a deadline to accept the flat. It explained the surveyor is qualified and the flat only needed minor works. The Council repeated there were no structural concerns and more documents would have been provided if he had accepted the flat.
8. I will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council carried out void works which were mainly painting, dealing with cosmetic issues, and repairing a window. It also completed an asbestos report which would have been provided if Mr X had accepted the flat. The work was overseen by a qualified surveyor and it is not fault for the Council to accept his professional judgement. I have seen the email and it gave Mr X a clear deadline by which to accept the flat. He did not accept it before the deadline so there is no fault in the Council withdrawing the offer.
9. Mr X wants changes made to the bidding system. For example, he says councils should provide more affordable accommodation, provide more information before signing a tenancy, and change how the bidding system operates. These are not outcomes we could achieve even if we started an investigation. Mr X would need to lobby local councillors for any changes he thinks should be made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman