Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council informing her she was eligible for a 1-bedroom flat when she is only eligible for a studio flat. She says she should be allowed to bid on 1-bedroom flats because of the Council’s error. She also says she was unable to bid for 2 months following the removal of rent arrears from her account which should have resulted in a suspension of bidding being lifted earlier.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X was accepted under the Council’s main homelessness duty in 2021. She was initially told that she was eligible to bid for 1-bedroom flats while she was in temporary accommodation. As she was pregnant she would have been eligible to bid on 2-bedroom flats after the birth of her child.
6. The Council subsequently told her that she was advised incorrectly that she was eligible for 1-bedroom flats and instead she had been re- categorised as eligible for mobility category studio flats only. Miss X later lost her baby and was not categorised as being eligible to bid on 1 or 2-bedroom flats. She says the Council should allow her to bid on 1-bedroom flats as it had previously told her she could.
7. The Council says Miss X was placed in the correct category for her housing needs once the error was identified and that she had not been eligible for any 1-bedroom vacancies. She also accrued rent arrears of over £12,000 after she started employment but failed to pay the full rental due for her temporary accommodation. Miss X’s bidding on vacancies was suspended because of the rent arrears.
8. In July 2024 Miss X was awarded discretionary housing payment (DHP)for the period when she owed rent up to October 2024. This meant that the suspension was lifted. Miss X says the Council delayed lifting the suspension which means she may have missed out on vacancies. The Council carried out an investigation and says that during the period after July, only 1-bedroom vacancies occurred and she is not eligible to bid on these because of her banding priority.
9. The Council accepted that it had initially advised her about the wrong category of eligibility. There was insufficient injustice caused by this because she was not eligible for 1-bedroom vacancies under the scheme and had she been successful in bidding this would have caused injustice to others on the list who were correctly eligible.
10. The Council was entitled to suspend her application from bidding due to rent arrears because she was required to pay the shortfall between housing benefit and the full rental after she started work. DHP is by nature discretionary and for a fixed period and there is no guarantee it will be awarded or renewed when the payment period expires.
11. The Council did delay removing the suspension for 7 weeks but it says no eligible studio flats became vacant in this period which Miss X could have made a bid on. The Council has accepted there were some faults in the assessment of her case and it has offered her £150 for the inconvenience and also has extended the fixed bidding window for her as a homeless applicant for a further 6 months.
12. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
13. In this case the Council has remedied any of the inconvenience of the earlier errors by correcting Miss X’s eligibility to what it should have been originally and offering her a discretion payment in recognition of her inconvenience. I consider that there is no remaining injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman