Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application. The Council delayed explaining what it had done, but it remedied that by apologising. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on other points. Mr X could reasonably have asked for a review of the decision to reduce his priority for housing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council suspending his housing register account and not rehousing him as he said it promised to do. He says this caused him not to renew the accommodation where he was staying.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or it would be (or would have been) reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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. Mr X says the Council contacted him saying he had been nominated for a Council property and seeking various information from him. I have seen no evidence the Council told Mr X he had been nominated for a property. The Council’s letter of 8 March 2023 said it was writing ‘Further to your recent bid for a property…’ The Council says it wrote because Mr X had come high on a shortlist for a property. That is not the same as a nomination for, or offer of, a property. So I see no reason to believe the Council said Mr X had been nominated.
7. The Council sought various information from Mr X in line with its procedure when someone appears high on a shortlist so there is a possibility the Council might offer a property. The Council’s checks resulted in the Council deciding Mr X’s circumstances did not merit the level of priority his application had. So the Council reduced Mr X’s priority from Band 3 to Band 5. This meant the Council did not consider Mr X further for the property in question. It also meant Mr X could not bid for more properties, as applicants in Band 5 cannot bid. The Council did not explain this to Mr X for a month or two, when it also explained Mr X’s right to ask for a review of the change in his banding. The Council apologised for the delay.
8. If Mr X was dissatisfied with the banding change, he could reasonably have sought a review. So I shall not consider whether the Council was at fault for reducing Mr X’s priority. The Council’s delay explaining the position and advising of the review right caused Mr X some avoidable uncertainty and frustration. The Council’s apology was enough remedy for that, so I shall not take further action on that point.
9. Mr X says he did not renew the accommodation where he had been staying (which was due to expire in August 2023) because the Council said he would move into the new property by the summer. However, I have seen no evidence the Council said that. The Council’s letter to Mr X about his bid said:

“This is not an offer of accommodation and you should not give notice on your existing tenancy/home unless you are made a formal written offer of alternative accommodation and have, or are about to sign a tenancy agreement for any property offered in the future.”

“We often consider a number of applicants for the same property, according to their final bidding positions. In view of this, it is possible that we may be considering your case as the next in line or as a reserve and not necessarily as the top bidder for any available accommodation. In view of this, you must not assume that you will be made an offer of any property that you may have placed a bid for.”

“We will write to you again IF we are able to make you an offer of accommodation in the future.”

10. That letter was not an offer, and it made clear any offer would be separate and in writing. The Council states it made no written offer because it decided Mr X should not have this property. So I have seen no evidence Mr X received an offer that would have warranted him giving up his accommodation. Also, the Council sent Mr X a stage 1 response to his complaint on 20 July 2023, before August 2023, saying the Council had not offered Mr X that any property. The Council was not responsible if Mr X gave notice on his accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council delayed explaining what had happened, but it remedied that by apologising. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on other points. Mr X could reasonably have asked for a review of the decision to reduce his priority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman