Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application and that its scheme of allocation was unfair towards single persons and those with pets. She wants the Council to amend the scheme.

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, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says she applied as homeless to the Council because her former rented home was no longer available after the landlord gave notice. She is staying with a friend and the Council accepted her on the housing register in band 2 which is the highest banding for her circumstances. The Council is currently bidding for her on the housing system for one-bedroom flats which become available, but she has been unsuccessful so far.
7. Miss X says the Council’s allocations scheme is unfair because she does not have children so foes not have the priority that homeless applicants with children or vulnerability have. She says she has animals instead of children, but the allocations scheme does not give her priority for this. She does not wish to be housed in a flat as she needs a garden for her pets and will not accept offers which are unsuitable.
8. The Council told Miss X that it is required to give priority to certain classes of people under housing legislation and she does not meet these priorities.
9. Miss X says the Council has housed applicants in her town from other parts of the borough and that this limits chances of housing for locals. The Council has a duty to provide housing for applicants using stock anywhere within its area.
10. She also complained that existing social housing tenants occupy family homes after their children have left. The Council explained to her that it has no authority to move tenants against their will and could not do so without a court order.
11. We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the applicant believes that the council should have given more priority to the application to move. It may be the case that, although they need to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman