Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s housing application. We have already decided part of the complaint. Some of the complaint about the Council rejecting Mrs X’s bids is late without good reason to investigate it now. We would be unlikely to find fault with: the Council’s rejection of more recent bids; its assessment of the types of property suited to the household’s mobility needs; or the amount of waiting time priority Mrs X’s application has.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about various matters related to the Council’s handling of her application for social housing. She says this has resulted in her family remaining in unsuitable housing, causing stress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and information we hold about Mrs X’s two previous complaints to us.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says the Council failed to offer her a property as it had agreed to resolve an earlier complaint to the Ombudsman. We made that recommendation in 2020. Mrs X complained to us in 2022 that the Council had not honoured the agreement to offer her a property. We found the Council had made an offer, so we did not uphold that complaint. Mrs X is bringing essentially the same point back to us now. We have already decided this point and will not revisit it.
7. Mrs X says since the Ombudsman’s recommendation in 2020 the Council has rejected her bids for over 40 properties. The restriction in paragraph 2 applies to events before December 2022, which was 12 months before Mrs X’s current complaint to the Ombudsman. Mrs X knows about our service and has complained to us in the past. She could reasonably have complained sooner if she was unhappy about not getting particular properties in previous years.
8. Regarding more recent bids, the Council told Mrs X her last 20 bids were rejected because Mrs X had bid for properties that did not meet her mobility needs as assessed by the Council. This relates to Mrs X’s argument that the Council refuses to house her family according to their needs. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s view of the types of property that would suit her family’s mobility needs. In a decision on a previous complaint from Mrs X, we said the Council had properly reached its view about this in 2019. We will not revisit that decision now.
9. The Council again considered the mobility needs in 2023. That decision appears based on information from Mrs X, an occupational therapy assessment and the Council’s housing allocation policy. Therefore, the Council seems to have properly reached its decision about the mobility needs and therefore the types of property Mrs X can bid for. So, as paragraph 3 explained, I cannot criticise the decision, albeit Mrs X is entitled to disagree with the Council. Any investigation would be unlikely to find fault here. It therefore follows that we would also be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s rejecting Mrs X’s bids for properties that do not match its assessment of her household’s needs.
10. Apart from the mobility needs, Mrs X said her family needed an extra bedroom. The Council agreed and is allowing her to bid for larger properties, so we cannot achieve more on that.
11. Mrs X says her application lost 18 years’ waiting time priority. The Council says Mrs X’s application recently moved from a lower priority band to Band A. The Council’s policy says if an application moves to a higher band, the waiting time priority date within the band will change to the date the Council gave the higher priority. This change was in line with the Council’s policy. I do not fault it.
12. The law says we should not investigate a complaint unless the Council is aware of the matter and has had a reasonable opportunity to respond, although we have discretion to disapply this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) This is relevant to two points in Mrs X’s current complaint to us.
1. Mrs X says the Council rejected her bid for a property because it could not be adapted to meet her needs (as the Council sees those needs), whereas the property had already been adapted. I have not seen evidence Mrs X has taken a complaint on that detailed point through the Council’s complaint procedure, as opposed to general comments about her bids being rejected.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council has not dealt properly with her landlord wanting to end her tenancy, so she fears her family becoming homeless. I have seen no evidence of a complaint to the Council on that point, either.
13. Mrs X is evidently able to complain to the Council. The Council is best placed to deal with such matters in the first instance. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to complete the Council’s complaint procedure on these points first. She could then complain to us if she remains dissatisfied.
14. On the potential homelessness point, I also note Mrs X says she disagrees with the Council’s view that it need not act until her landlord serves a legal notice to end the tenancy (a ‘section 21 notice’). If that is the Council’s position, it seems in line with the law and government guidance on when to treat a tenant as legally homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. We have already decided part of the complaint. Some of the complaint about the Council rejecting Mrs X’s bids is late without good reason to investigate it now. We would be unlikely to find fault with: the Council’s rejection of more recent bids; its assessment of the types of property suited to the household’s mobility needs; or the amount of waiting time priority Mrs X’s application has.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman