Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a vacancy on the Council’s choice-based housing lettings system which Miss X says was incorrectly advertised. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s advertisement of a social housing tenancy on its allocations bidding scheme which she says was misrepresented. She says the rental is higher than advertised and it is on a different floor level. She believes the Council should have carried out an affordability check before allowing her to sign the tenancy agreement and is now concerned she may be considered to be intentionally homeless if she loses her tenancy through rent arrears.

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
• 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. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X was homeless and in temporary accommodation in 2024. She was also on the Council’s housing waiting list on band B . She made a bid on a social housing vacancy on the Council’s online bidding system and was successful. She signed the tenancy agreement but says the rental is higher than advertised and that it is on a different floor level. She is concerned that she may find the property unaffordable in future and will not be accepted as homeless if she gave up the tenancy through rent arrears.
6. The Council says it’s online bidding list includes vacancies in Council and housing association sectors. It puts the details of other social landlords on its site in good faith but it cannot check all the details continuously. The onus is on the successful bidder to ensure the vacancy meets their needs before signing any agreement. It has no control over landlords increasing the rental annually and this also requires the prospective tenant to check the agreement.
7. Miss X believes the Council should have checked that the vacancy was affordable for her needs. Councils only check affordability when they are offering a tenancy to end its homeless duty or providing temporary accommodation. Miss X found this vacancy through the online bidding system and the Council was not involved through its homelessness role.
8. The Council’s allocations policy requires a financial check for someone to be eligible for the register. However, this is only to confirm that their earnings do not exceed the limit for eligibility. If they do then they are expected to find their own accommodation through rental or purchase. There is no lower limit of earnings for the housing register because social rented housing is generally the most affordable form of rental.
9. Miss X is a social housing tenant and we have no authority to investigate what due diligence the social landlord may have carried out or its tenancy sign-up procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about a vacancy on the Council’s choice-based housing lettings system which Miss X says was incorrectly advertised. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman