Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there were review rights the complainant could have used. In addition, the Council has offered a remedy for an error that occurred.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council reduced her priority to band C on the housing register.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X. This includes a review response and an update from the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X was in band A on the housing register because the Council had accepted a homelessness duty.
5. In February the Council offered a property to discharge its duty to provide Ms X with a home. Ms X refused the offer as she did not think it was suitable. Instead of refusing the offer Ms X could have asked for a suitability review. The Council would then have reviewed whether the property was suitable.
6. The Council discharged its homelessness duty to Ms X because she refused the offer. Ms X continued to live in the same accommodation as when the offer was made.
7. Ms X made a new housing application. The Council accepted the application and placed her band C. Ms X was not eligible for band A because the Council no longer had a homelessness duty to her.
8. In September Ms X asked for a review regarding the suitability of the February accommodation offer. The Council declined to do a review because Ms X should have asked for a review within 21 days of the offer.
9. I asked the Council for some information. While responding to my request the Council realised there was no record it wrote to Ms X in February to say it had discharged the homelessness duty and offering review rights against that decision. The Council will now write to Ms X to explain the decision and offer review rights.
10. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
11. Ms X could have asked for a suitability review in February if she did not think the property the Council offered was suitable. It is reasonable to expect her to do this because it is the correct way to challenge decisions about the suitability of offers. We cannot decide if the offer was suitable.
12. There is no record the Council notified Ms X it discharged its homelessness duty. It will correct this by issuing the letter and giving review rights. Ms X will then have 21 days to ask for a review of the decision to discharge the duty; she could include comments about the property the Council offered. Again, it is reasonable to expect her to use her review rights. If the review is successful the Council would reinstate the homelessness duty and band A; but, it would be for the Council to decide whether to uphold the review. We cannot change any of the homelessness decisions or make a decision on any review request.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there were review rights Ms X could have used and because the Council has offered a satisfactory response by sending the discharge of duty letter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman