Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict her ability to bid on properties, and its delayed response to her housing review request. There is not enough evidence of fault causing Miss X a significant enough injustice to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:

• restricted her bidding following her child’s Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment;
• failed to respond to her request in a timely manner. She says it gave no reason for the delay.; and
• failed to make her current accommodation safe.

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.
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.

(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. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In its response to Miss X, the Council said it accepted OT recommendations about adaptations needed to meet her child’s needs. It said it had placed her on the highest band one priority in 2023 reserved for households with an urgent need to move.
9. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to restrict her bidding following her child’s OT assessment. The Council’s published policy outlines its allocation criteria in detail. Relevant to this case, it explains applicants with identified need for adapted accommodation can only bid for properties that meet the assessed needs. It notes bidding rules can be modified at its discretion considering individual circumstances against its allocation scheme and available resources.
10. The Council reviewed Miss X’s request and explained the wait time for a suitable non-adapted accommodation was similar to that of an adapted accommodation. Based on this, it said there was no reason to amend its bidding rules. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy, but I am satisfied the Council acted in line with its published policy to reach its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify investigating this aspect of Miss X’s complaint.
11. Miss X says the Council failed to respond to her review request in a timely manner. I note the Council apologised for its delayed response. I appreciate Miss X is unhappy, however any fault by the Council in this regard has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. This is because a timely response from the Council would not have changed its position on what Miss X is able to bid on.
12. Matters related to the safety and maintenance of a social housing property where the Council is the landlord are outside our jurisdiction, therefore I cannot investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing her a significant enough injustice to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman