Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council failed to properly consider her request for a referral to another Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her request for a referral to another Council. She also complains the Council failed to consider whether it was reasonable for her to remain in her property due to the impact of the noise and anti-social behaviour experienced.

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. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says her accommodation is not suitable due to her neighbour being noisy and directing anti-social behaviour towards her. Miss X says this is impacting her mental health and wishes to move to another council’s area.
6. Miss X complained the Council refused to refer her to the council that she wishes to move to. The Council explained there is no case for referral and confirmed they had discussed the matter with the relevant council, who confirmed they would not accept a referral.
7. Miss X refers to a section 38 referral. However, it is not clear what legislation Miss X is referring to. The Council has a discretionary power to refer homeless applicants to other authorities if it is determined they have a local connection with the district of another housing authority. However, the Council has not found Miss X to be homeless, so this is not applicable.
8. An investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault. There is no requirement for the Council to refer Miss X to another housing authority.
9. The Council confirmed Miss X is registered on its home seeker housing system with silver banding award and can bid on alternative properties.
10. The Council’s allocation policy details that silver banding is awarded where this is significant welfare need that would be alleviated by a move to more suitable accommodation. Therefore, this indicates the Council has properly considered the impact Miss X’s current property is having on her welfare.
11. Additionally, the Council confirmed it could provide Miss X with financial support to help her to secure a privately rented property within the area she wants to move to. Therefore, the Council has taken appropriate action to support Miss X to secure alternative accommodation. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.
12. In response to the final decision, Miss X clarified she was also complaining about the Council’s failure to consider whether it was reasonable for her to remain in her property due to the impact of the noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) experienced. She says it is not reasonable for her to continue to occupy her property and therefore she was homeless.
13. I made enquiries with the Council around this, and the Council confirmed it had considered whether it was reasonable for Miss X and her partner to remain in the property. The Council said the head of housing attended a meeting in September 2024, alongside a community officer and police officers who were investigated the reported noise and ASB. At the meeting, the professionals confirmed there was no evidence of threats, noise nuisance, or other ASB from Miss X’s neighbour.
14. The Council also confirmed it made enquiries with its environmental health team who had visited the property and conducted noise monitoring. The officers only identified low level, normal household neighbour noises.
15. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council properly considered whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her property before deciding Miss X was not homeless.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman