Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. This is mainly because investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not given her social housing application high enough priority and she has been waiting too long for rehousing. She states this means she and her family remain in overcrowded and unsafe conditions.

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. (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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I considered the Council’s social housing allocation policy.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s family needs a larger home due to overcrowding and because the current home is unsafe due to a household member’s medical conditions. To protect anonymity, I shall not give more details.
8. Mrs X says she has been waiting over three years for rehousing. She complained to us in May 2024. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to events before May 2023. I consider Mrs X could reasonably have complained to us sooner if she was dissatisfied about earlier events. So I shall not investigate those earlier events. It is also more important to focus on the current situation with Mrs X’s application, as that it what affects her chances of rehousing now.
9. Mrs X complained her application has Band A overcrowding priority but should have Band A medical priority. However, the Council’s policy gives Band B as the highest priority for overcrowding. It has no ‘Band A overcrowding’ priority, so there is no scope for confusion there. The application in fact has Band A medical priority. I am satisfied there is no failure to consider medical priority. Band A medical priority is the highest medical priority the Council’s policy can give. So I see no evidence of fault causing Mrs X any injustice with the consideration of medical priority.
10. Mrs X argues she has extenuating circumstances so the Council should offer a move now. The law states the Council can only allocate social housing in line with its allocation policy. The policy lists limited circumstances in which the Council can allocate outside its usual arrangement of allocating to the bidder with highest priority. None of those circumstances apply to Mrs X’s case.
11. The policy says the Council can offer a management transfer ‘in exceptional circumstances due to significant problems associated with the tenant’s occupation of a dwelling and there is imminent personal risk to the tenant or their family if they remain in the dwelling.’ Examples given include harassment or domestic violence (legally, the latter can only occur between people aged 16 or over; it does not apply to Mrs X’s case). Management transfer cases have slightly higher priority than Mrs X has. Where an applicant is a housing association tenant, as Mrs X is, the policy only allows a management transfer where there is a reciprocal agreement with the landlord. The Council says it could therefore only consider this if the landlord assesses Mrs X as needing such a transfer. It has not received such an approach from the landlord. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has no power to consider the landlord’s actions here.
12. As the unsafe situation in Mrs X’s family arises from a medical condition, in the circumstances there is no fault in the Council treating it as mainly a medical matter. It is appropriate to consider medical matters under the allocation policy’s medical priority rules. So I do not fault the Council for treating this as a medical matter.
13. The Ombudsman recognises 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 rehouse someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published allocations scheme. Here, the evidence does not suggest fault in the priority the Council has given to Mrs X’s application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman