Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the application.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains on behalf of her relative Miss X about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing application. Miss X has not bid successfully for social housing yet. Ms Y reports Miss X and her children therefore remain in crowded conditions in Ms Y’s home, which is inconvenient and distressing for them all concerned and not good for the children, especially given one child’s disability.

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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published allocations scheme.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and I viewed the Council’s housing allocations scheme online.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council says it gave Miss X’s application Band B priority in 2023. This covers both severe overcrowding and urgent medical need to move.
9. The Council’s 2023 decision advised Miss X of her right to ask the Council to review the decision, which the Council reiterated when Ms Y queried the matter later in 2023. Ms Y says Miss X did not seek a review because she was told there would be no point if there was no new evidence. That was Miss X’s choice. The review right was available to her if she wanted to put any particular arguments or evidence to the Council. It is not for us to do the equivalent of a Council review instead. We are not an appeal body and we do not decide what level of priority to award a housing application. As paragraph 4 explained, we can only look at how the Council reached its decision.
10. Band B appears correct for the level of overcrowding. For medical priority, Band B recognises urgent need. The Council’s policy says an application would usually only get medical priority higher than that (Band A) if someone in the household has “a currently life-threatening illness or disability which is severely adversely affected by their current housing circumstances.” Nothing I have seen suggests the Council had information suggesting that was the case with Miss X’s family. So the Council’s decision on housing register priority seems properly reached. Therefore I cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 4 explained.
11. Ms Y says the Council advertises very few properties suitable for Miss X to bid for, especially as Miss X needs to be near certain areas for support and will only consider ground-floor properties due to the disability of one of her children. Miss X can limit her bids to certain areas and ground-floor properties. That does not mean the Council is at fault for not many such properties being available. Nor is the Council at fault for Miss X’s bids for properties not succeeding because other bidders had higher priority.
12. Miss X is unhappy as she understands she might wait many years before getting social housing. The Council has no duty actually to give Miss X social housing. Its duty here is just to let Miss X bid with appropriate priority for vacant social housing in line with the Council’s allocations scheme. The evidence suggests it has done that. Miss X’s lack of success so far seems to be because demand for social housing significantly outstrips supply, not because of fault by the Council.
13. Ms Y says the Council has suggested Miss X could apply as homeless, but Ms Y and Miss X do not want that. That is a matter for Miss X to decide, but there is no fault in the Council suggesting the possibility.
14. The Council’s response to an enquiry about Miss X’s application mistakenly included details of Ms Y’s own application, not Miss X’s. That should not have happened. However, this was just in response to an enquiry, it was not an error on the substantive handling of Miss X’s application itself. The Council quickly corrected the error and apologised. That was sufficient and I see no need for further action on this point.
15. Miss X was dissatisfied with how a Council officer handled a telephone call about her housing. That was around two years ago, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies here. I have not seen good reason to accept the late complaint now. Even if there was good reason, it is unlikely on balance we could reach a clear enough view now about what was said, and how it was said, on a telephone call so long ago. Ms Y says the Council ignored her complaint about the telephone call for some time. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the application to justify investigating and if Miss X thought the decision about priority was wrong, she could reasonably have used her review right. There was no fault in the Council suggesting a homelessness application. There is no need for further action regarding the Council confusing Miss X and Ms Y in one response. The complaint about the telephone call is late without good enough reason to investigate now and it is also unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about this point. It would be disproportionate to investigate in isolation the Council’s handling of the complaint about the telephone call.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman