Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council misled a housing applicant into thinking she had been offered a property. There is not enough evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, said the Council misled her into thinking it had offered her a property. Ms X wants the Council to provide her with long-term accommodation as a remedy for her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. I also considered Ms X’s comments in response to a draft of this decision. In addition I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council’s housing allocation policy says that applicants who bid for a social housing property will be ranked according to their priority. Applicants at the top of the ranking will be invited to view the property. The housing provider will ask an applicant to sign a tenancy if they are offered a property following a viewing. The Council also carries out verification checks on the applicant before a viewing is arranged.
5. Ms X lives in overcrowded accommodation which gives her a high priority under the Council’s housing allocation scheme. Ms X also said her landlord has asked her to leave her property.
6. Ms X placed a bid for a housing association property. She was one of five applicants shortlisted. The Council asked her and the other shortlisted applicants to provide verification documents. But the association withdrew the property before the verification had been completed and before anyone was invited to view it. The association did not offer the property to any of the shortlisted applicants.
7. Ms X said she was misled into thinking she had been offered the property because the bidding system showed her status as ‘offered’.
8. In response to her complaint the Council confirmed the property had not been offered to her or to any of the other applicants. It explained the term ‘offered’ on the system is an administrative phrase which does not mean a property has been formally offered.
9. I can understand why Ms X thought she had been offered the property. However, other information makes it clear that being contacted about a successful bid is just the first step in an allocation and does not mean a property has been offered or will be offered.
10. I recognise Ms X’s disappointment and sense she was misled. But we do not have reason to investigate her complaint as there is insufficient injustice to warrant our involvement. In particular, the housing association never formally offered the property to anyone on the shortlist before withdrawing from the bidding scheme completely. So Ms X did not lose out on an offer. In addition, the Council has explained what happened.
11. Ms X said her landlord has asked her to leave her home. Ms X can contact the Council for further advice about this matter and about whether she can make a homelessness application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council misled her into thinking she had been offered a social housing property she made a bid for. There is no sign that any fault by the Council regarding this matter has caused Ms X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman