Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and housing register applications. This is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application and the withdrawal of an offer of housing. She said the Council’s failures had caused uncertainty and emotional distress, and that she worried about the impact of house moves on her son’s education.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Notice to Quit

5. Ms X is living with her family in temporary accommodation, arranged by the Council under its homelessness duties. Her landlord issued a Notice to Quit in October 2023, but she said the Council had not clarified the position since then, which has caused worry and uncertainty. The Council said it had received a copy of the notice but had heard nothing further. It is the landlord’s decision whether to take court action to require Ms X to leave and it appears they have not done so because neither the Council nor Ms X have heard anything more. Unless the landlord decides they want the property back, there is no further action for the Council to take. Whilst I appreciate the uncertainty caused, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this part of the complaint.
6. The fact Ms X has been in temporary accommodation for more than ten years is not, of itself, evidence of fault. We recognise there is a national shortage of affordable housing, which is particularly acute in London, so people are waiting long periods of time for suitable long-term accommodation.

Change of circumstances

7. In June 2024, Ms X completed a medical questionnaire. The Council sought medical advice and, as a result, agreed to adjust its assessment of the type of property the family need. Due to an oversight, it did not communicate the outcome until November 2024. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response. The Council told us this caused a delay in the application being added to its Relative Needs Database, but it remedied the delay by back-dating this to October 2023. The Council has taken appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused by its delay and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Ms X had a right of review of she disagreed with the decision issued in November 2024 and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right.

Property offer

8. In November 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X to say she had been nominated for a new build property. This was a housing association property that was advertised through the housing register. When the housing authority carried out affordability checks, it decided Ms X could not afford the property, following which the offer was withdrawn.
9. Council records show the housing association later said Ms X had met its affordability criteria, but it turned out it had mixed up Ms X’s details with the applicant next on the list to be considered for the property. The Council queried the position with the housing association before contacting Ms X to confirm the offer was withdrawn because she had not met the affordability criteria. In its communications with Ms X, there were references to the offer being due to a bid and also to it being due to a nomination, which added to the confusion. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the misunderstanding and the distress caused. An apology is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman