Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions as manager of social housing and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns about the Council’s response to a Freedom of Information request.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal to agree a management transfer, based on his household being severely overcrowded and their medical needs. Ms X said this meant the family remain in unsuitable housing, which has a negative impact on the emotional and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Background

7. Ms X lives in severely overcrowded accommodation with three children, who have complex needs and disabilities. She is in band A on the Council’s housing register and needs a four-bedroom property. Ms X said there have been no suitable properties for him to bid for since March 2024. Ms X asked the Council for an urgent management transfer, but it said she did not meet the criteria for this. She also raised concerns about the security of the building she lives in and about neighbours leaving unsafe items in communal spaces and staircases, which could prevent her family safely evacuating in an emergency. In its complaint response, the Council explained the action it had taken to alert neighbours of these concerns. It also said she could make a homelessness application but that may mean she had to given up her social tenancy and move to a private rented sector property. It provided a link if she wanted to make a homelessness application.

My assessment

8. The Council has considered Ms X’s housing conditions, including her severe overcrowding and the medical needs of the family. It awarded band A on its housing register, which is the highest band and reflects her housing conditions.
9. Ms X needs a four-bedroom property, and these do not become available very often, which means there are few properties to bid for. There are also other applicants waiting for a four-bedroom property, some of whom may have been waiting longer. The long waiting time for rehousing reflects the high demand and low availability of social housing, especially in London. It does not, on its own, indicate Council fault.
10. Whilst the Council could have considered it had “reason to believe” Ms X was homeless on the basis it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy her current property without her formally making a homelessness application, I note Ms X is seeking a management transfer (that is a move to another social tenancy) and it is unlikely that will be achieved through a homelessness application. The Council was correct to say that a homelessness application was likely to lead to her being placed in private rented sector accommodation. It did, however, provide a link for Ms X to make a homelessness application if she wanted to do so.
11. The law and case law Ms X quoted in her complaint applies to homelessness applications and, in particular, to the provision of temporary accommodation, and does not apply to housing register applications.
12. Based on the above, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.
13. The law says we cannot investigate a Council’s actions in its role as manager of social housing, which means we cannot investigate any concerns about how the Council is addressing the behaviour of other residents in the building, nor any concerns about disrepair in his property. We can consider housing register applications based on “reasonable preference” (which I have addressed above), but we cannot investigate decisions relating to management transfers, which come under the management of social housing.
14. Ms X also raised a concern about the Council’s response to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider any concerns about the information the Council did or did not provide in response to Ms X’s FOI request.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the Council’s handling of his housing register application to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns about freedom of information requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman