Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change her effective date after she refused an offer of a property through its housing register. The decision was in line with its published allocations scheme and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application, which she said caused stress and affected her mental health. She said the Council provided inconsistent reasons for her refusing a property offered and had not properly considered her concerns or handled the matter sensitively.

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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X bid for a property through the Council’s housing register in October 2024 and the Council nominated her for the property to the housing provider. The housing provider subsequently told the Council Ms X had refused the offer. It said, the reasons for refusal were:
• Location. The family have one car, which Mr X needs for work, which would leave Ms X isolated.
• Anti-social behaviour (ASB). Concerns about ASB in the area.
• Mental health. Isolation could worsen Ms X’s mental health issues.
6. The Council considered the reasons given for refusing but did not accept they justified refusal. It wrote to Ms X to explain this meant her effective date had been changed to the date of refusal, in line with its published allocations scheme. It said she could ask for a review of this decision of she disagreed with it.
7. Ms X asked for a review. In her review request she said the main reason was ASB in the area, which she was not aware of until she viewed the property. She also said that, at the time of her bid, Mr X was working from home, so she thought she could use the car. Although there was a station nearby, she said neither workplace was accessible by train. She said her mental health had declined and she could send a supporting letter from the health professional supporting her. The Council acknowledged the review request and asked her to send it any supporting evidence as soon as possible.
8. In its review decision, the Council considered all the reasons given for refusal but concluded they did not make the refusal reasonable. It also noted Ms X had not provided any evidence to support the reasons given. It upheld the decision to change the effective date, in line with its published allocations scheme.

My assessment

9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct, nor say what decisions the Council should have made. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
10. The Council’s published allocations scheme says, at paragraph 30.2, that “Applicants who refuse a property will have their effective date set to the date on which they refused the offer of accommodation, effectively reducing their priority within the band”.
11. There is no dispute that Ms X’s bid was successful, the property was offered to her and she refused it. The reasons given by the provider to the Council were the same as those set out in Ms X’s review request and were considered by the Council when it made its original decision and on review. The Council did not accept the refusal was reasonable and set out its reasons for this at both stages. The decision was in line with its published allocations scheme and there was no delay in its decision-making. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation, so we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman