Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has refused to rehouse her despite her neighbour being so threatening towards her that the police have told her it is not safe to live in the property.
2. Miss Y says she does not feel safe in the property she is expected to live in. She says this is causing her deep upset, worry and distress. She also says the condition of the property is affecting her health and she feels it is a safety risk.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y asked the Council to move her from her existing accommodation to a new property following an incident with her neighbour in which Miss Y called the police. The Council considered this as a request for a management move. This is where the Council agree to move a tenant urgently due to violence, harassment, intimidation or threats of violence which are likely to be carried out. During the Council’s consideration Miss Y was moved into temporary accommodation.
7. The Council considered Miss Y’s request, but it was refused. Miss Y then appealed the Council’s decision. The Council considered statements about the condition of Miss Y’s property, which had mould and damp issues, and about the incident Miss Y had reported to the police. It also considered statements from Miss Y’s relative, a community support worker, from a police officer involved in the incident and from Miss Y. It did not uphold Miss Y’s appeal, as the Council found the further information Miss Y had provided did not meet the threshold for a managed move, as it did not believe Miss Y was at risk of significant harm and imminent danger which meant she needed to move urgently. Miss Y then approached us.
8. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
9. In this case the Council has considered its policy and relevant information, including from Miss Y and the police. Miss Y had the opportunity to provide evidence and information to be considered as part of her appeal and the information she provided is reflected within the Council’s letter explaining its decision. The Council considered that the police were unable to identify a perpetrator to the incident Miss Y experienced and that the main issue from the information Miss Y had given about her desire to move in statements relating to the conditions of the property, not the potential problems with her neighbours.
10. While Miss Y may disagree with the Council’s decision not to rehouse her, the decision has been made with reference to suitable and relevant information and in line with the Council’s policy. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigating this complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman