Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide her with a satisfactory service when she asked it to support her with rehousing as her current accommodation was overcrowded. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her with a satisfactory service when she asked it to support her with rehousing as her current accommodation was overcrowded.

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 we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepted Ms X onto its housing register in March 2010. Ms X has priority band 3, effective from September 2009.
6. Ms X approached the Council for help with her housing in January 2023. She says the Council has not considered her children’s health and welfare when considering her priority band. She also says the Council failed to assess her as required under the Housing Act 1996.
7. During its complaint response, the Council accepted it should have advised Ms X to make a homeless application when she first approached it for help. The Council apologised and provided Ms X with information on how to do this in its stage two complaint response. The Council also confirmed it would arrange for a medical advisor to review information to decide if Ms X’s housing application should receive priority on medical grounds. The Council asked Ms X to complete a medical referral form to start this process.
8. The Council confirmed Ms X made an application online in May 2023. The Council said it tried to contact Ms X to discuss her application but could not reach her. The Council emailed Ms X and told her it had closed her case as it had not been able to contact her. The Council asked her to make a new application if she still needed support. The Council also confirmed Ms X did not submit a medical referral form for its consideration.
9. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. The Council has apologised for not providing Ms X with appropriate advice when she first approached for support. The Council has now provided Ms X with information as to how to how to proceed. An investigation would not lead to any further findings or recommendations.
10. I note Ms X has not submitted the medical referral form to allow the Council to consider her children’s medical conditions to decide whether further priority should be awarded to her housing application. It is open to Ms X to complete this.
11. Further, the Council has not been able to proceed with assessing her homeless application as it was not able to contact Ms X. The Council provided Ms X with advice to complete a new application should she still require support. There was no evidence Ms X did this. Again, should Ms X still require support from the Council, it is open to her to make a new application.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman