Summary: We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing application. This is because the information indicates the Council has assessed Miss C’s priority in line with the Council’s housing allocations scheme. The Council has apologised for providing wrong information to Miss C. This was a suitable response and an investigation is not justified.

The complaint

1. Miss C says the Council told her once her second child was born it would help her move to larger accommodation. But, Miss C says the Council later told her she would remain in Band D on the housing register because her property does not lack two or more bedrooms.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Miss C and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations scheme.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says priority because of overcrowding will only be awarded where a household is lacking two or more additional bedrooms.
6. The information indicates the Council’s decision - to keep Miss C’s housing application in Band D after the birth of her second child - was in line with the Council’s housing allocations scheme. This is because Miss C’s household requires one additional bedroom.
7. The Council has accepted that an officer wrongly advised Miss C that once her second child was born her priority would increase and she would be offered alternative accommodation. The Council has apologised for any confusion or distress this caused Miss C.
8. This was a suitable response from the Council. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the action already undertaken by the Council or provide a meaningful outcome for Miss C.
9. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault regarding the Council’s assessment of her priority for re-housing. An investigation into the wrong information provided by the Council is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman