Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council unfairly refused her request to view a property in person and then decided she had unreasonably refused the property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council unfairly refused her request to view a property in person before deciding whether to accept it. She says it then decided she had unreasonably refused the property and so removed her housing register emergency priority. She says this was unfair. She wants the Council to reinstate her emergency priority banding and offer her a suitable property.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X was allocated emergency priority on the Council’s housing register.
7. The Council offered Ms X a property and allowed her to view the property via a virtual viewing. Ms X said she was concerned there was mould present and requested to see the property in person before deciding whether to accept it.
8. The Council considered her request but told Ms X it would not agree to an accompanied viewing. It said it had reviewed the virtual viewing footage and its surveyor had visited the property again. It was satisfied there was no damp or mould present.
9. It told Ms X that if she did not accept the property it may lead to the loss of her emergency priority status. Ms X did not accept the property by the deadline.
10. The Council decided she had unreasonably refused the property. It removed her priority status. Ms X asked the Council to review the decision, but it did not change its position.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s housing allocations policy states those with emergency priority will be provided with one reasonable offer of property. If deemed to unreasonably refuse, this will lead to the loss of emergency priority status.
12. The Council appropriately considered her request for an accompanied viewing but decided not to agree to it. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. It explained its reasons for the decision to Ms X. It reaffirmed the deadline for accepting the property and set out the possible consequences of refusal.
13. We cannot question a Council’s decision if there is no fault in how it is reached. The Council decided she had unreasonably refused the property and the decision to remove her emergency priority appears in line with its housing allocations policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman