Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. The Council was entitled to change its housing allocations policy and to apply the change to Mrs X. Any communication problems about this did not cause significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating. The Council’s moving Mrs X to different temporary accommodation was consistent with its legal duty. Mrs X could reasonably have used her review right about the new accommodation’s suitability.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council: changed its housing allocations policy and applied the change to her; failed to communicate with her properly about the change; falsely reassured her the change would not apply to her; and made her move to new homelessness temporary accommodation. Mrs X says this meant she lost an offer of social housing, suffered avoidable disappointment and had the inconvenience of moving. She also says the new accommodation had no cooker and is affecting the health of one of her family.

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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (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. I also viewed information on the Council’s website about its housing allocations scheme. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Change of housing allocations policy

5. Mrs X was on the Council’s housing register due to homelessness. In 2024 the Council changed its housing allocations policy so it would only give social housing to people who have lived in Harlow for seven years or more (it was previously five years). Mrs X had not lived there that long. The Council removed Mrs X from its housing register after deciding none of the exceptions to the policy applied.
6. The Council was entitled to change its policy in this way and to apply the new policy to everyone, including those, like Mrs X, who were already on the housing register before the change. The Council’s decision in Mrs X’s case was properly reached, so I cannot criticise it, as paragraph 3 explained.

Communication with Mrs X about the change

7. The Council accepts it did not tell Mrs X about the change to its policy, due to an error with Mrs X’s address. It apologised and changed its procedure to try to prevent a repeat of such an error.
8. Mrs X, unaware of the policy change, kept bidding for social housing. Only after she bid successfully for a property did the Council tell her about the new seven-year residency requirement. Mrs X says the Council then told her by telephone that, if she provided evidence of how long she had lived locally it would make an exception. The Council disagrees, saying it merely said it would consider the evidence. The Council did not continue with the offer of the property to Mrs X.
9. As paragraph 2 explained, we will only investigate a point if the alleged fault is likely to have disadvantaged the person complaining significantly enough to warrant investigation. Here, any fault might have resulted in Mrs X having false reassurance and then avoidable disappointment. While that might amount to some injustice, I do not consider it significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing this point.

Moving Mrs X to different homelessness temporary accommodation

10. Mrs X’s homelessness temporary accommodation had disrepair. Mrs X wanted the Council to repair the property with her and her family living there, rather than having to move again. The Council said the property’s condition meant it was not suitable for the family, so the Council moved the family to alternative temporary accommodation.
11. The Council must provide suitable accommodation for homeless people. (Housing Act 1996, s206) When it decided the property’s condition made the property unsuitable, it could not keep the family there. So there was no fault in the Council deciding Mrs X could not remain in the old accommodation.
12. Mrs X is dissatisfied the new temporary accommodation had no cooker. Mrs X had the right to ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) In such circumstances, if the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) If the court decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must then provide suitable accommodation. Mrs X could reasonably have used her right to seek a suitability review. So we shall not investigate this point.
13. Mrs X reports the new accommodation adversely affects the health of one of her family. That is a new matter since the Council finished dealing with Mrs X’s complaint (when Mrs X was still in the previous accommodation). We will not consider whether to investigate this until the Council has had a reasonable opportunity to deal with a complaint about this. Also, Mrs X can give the Council any relevant evidence and ask the Council to consider whether the new accommodation remains suitable.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council was entitled to change its allocations policy and to apply the change to Mrs X. Any faults in the Council’s communication with Mrs X about this did not cause significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating. The Council’s moving Mrs X to different temporary accommodation was consistent with its legal duty. Mrs X could reasonably have used her review right about the new accommodation’s suitability.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman