Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has handled his housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing application. He says the Council has failed to offer his family permanent accommodation since his application in April 2023 and this has impacted on him and his family’s health. He wants the Council to offer them permanent accommodation within its area.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. Mr X lives with his family in private rented accommodation. In April 2023, Mr X’s landlord asked him to vacate the property. Mr X applied to the Council for housing support.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said it had assessed his application, accepted him onto the housing register and placed his household in priority band two. Mr X was unhappy with this decision. He requested a review and submitted additional evidence. The Council has since reviewed Mr X’s priority band three times, but it had not changed this decision.
8. It said it had accepted it could not prevent the eviction and had offered to place Mr X’s family in temporary accommodation in 2023 but Mr X had initially declined this, preferring to wait for an offer of permanent accommodation. He then accepted the offer in February 2024 and the Council made Mr X an offer of temporary accommodation in March 2024. Mr X declined the offer as he did not consider the property suitable for his family. The Council discharged its housing duty to Mr X but following a review, this decision was reversed.
9. Mr X currently remains in his private rented accommodation and on the Council’s housing register awaiting an offer of social housing.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council appropriately reviewed its decision related to his priority banding, considering all the supporting information Mr X submitted. The decision appears to be in line with its housing allocations policy which states band two includes applicants whose housing is unsuitable for severe medical reasons or because of disability. The level of overcrowding in his current property also reflects band two priority. I accept Mr X disagrees with this decision, but we will not investigate if a decision appears in line with a Council’s policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to warrant an investigation.
11. Mr X states the temporary accommodation offered in March 2024 was not suitable for his family and refused the offer. The Council then discharged its housing duty to him. Mr X successfully challenged this and the Council reversed its decision. Mr X remains on the housing register awaiting an offer of accommodation, so I do not consider this has caused a significant injustice.
12. Mr X is unhappy that he has not yet been made an offer of permanent accommodation. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. This can lead to long waiting times before a person receives an offer of social housing, if at all. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has managed his application to warrant an investigation. In the absence of fault, we could not require the Council to increase his priority banding or offer him a property.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr 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