Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Miss X’s housing application. It is reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the Council’s decision. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that her social housing landlord failed to make provision for storing her belongings once she was allocated accommodation in previous years. The matter has been subject to court proceedings and we have no jurisdiction to consider this.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to remove her application to the housing register following an initial award of Band B status. She also complains about damage to her stored belongings whilst she was housed in housing association accommodation in previous years.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says she was born in the Council’s area and has previously been rehoused as homeless. She is currently living with a friend and says she needs housing of her own. She applied to the Council’s housing register and was initially awarded Band B priority as she was considered to be homeless. Three days later the Council informed her that it had used her previous homeless application data in error and that currently it owes no homeless duty to her because she is not threatened with homelessness under her current circumstances. Because of this the Band B status was removed.
6. The Council then advised Miss X that her application to the housing register currently has no priority and so she will not be accepted. Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision and believes she should be allowed on the register because she was born in the Council’s area. The Council’s decision letter advised Miss X that she has a right to have the decision reviewed within 21 days.
7. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
8. It is reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the decision and to present any information to the Council which she may feel has not been taken into account.
9. Miss X also complained about the failure of the Council to accept responsibility for damage to her possessions whilst she was a tenant in housing association accommodation which she was nominated to by the Council. She says that she was not offered storage of her possessions when she was rehoused in smaller accommodation and that her belongings were damaged by a water leak when she was storing them in her room.
10. Miss X has taken court action over this matter and we have no jurisdiction to consider claims for negligence against social housing landlords which have been subject to court proceedings. This is regardless of the outcome of the court action.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s rejection of Miss X’s housing application. It is reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review of the Council’s decision. We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that her social housing landlord failed to make provision for storing her belongings once she was allocated accommodation in previous years. The matter has been subject to court proceedings and we have no jurisdiction to consider this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman