Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's lack of response to Police contact in 2024 supporting her need to move. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its assessment of her housing priority and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council ignored a Police letter in 2024 supporting her need to move and that it has not yet made her a rehousing offer despite her being on its housing register for several years. She says the matter is affecting her wellbeing and causing her and her family distress. She wants the Council to make her a suitable offer of rehousing.

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.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed it had been received an email from the Police in April 2024 supporting her need for rehousing. It said it had asked the Police for further information, but it had not received any further contact. At the time, it did review her housing priority, but the email did not indicate there was an immediate risk requiring an emergency move. As it had already awarded her the maximum additional priority on welfare grounds in 2023, it decided no further priority could be awarded.
7. It apologised to her for not communicating this outcome to her at the time, and that the stage one complaint response had also not accurately reflected the situation. It also apologised for the delay providing a stage two complaint response. It advised her that if she was still experiencing anti-social behaviour, she could report this to the community resilience team who could assess if it need to take any further action.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council appears to have appropriately considered the matter when it received the Police contact in 2024. It decided there was not enough evidence of a need for an urgent or emergency move, so it did not warrant an increase in her priority banding. It also reviewing her points award and confirmed she had the maximum welfare points. This Council appropriately considered the matter before reaching its decisions, so we cannot question the outcome.
9. Ms X’s current housing priority appears in line with its policy and includes the maximum points for welfare needs. Although I acknowledge Ms X says she has been waiting a long time for an offer of rehousing, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of her housing priority to warrant an investigation.
10. The Council has apologised for the distress caused by its failure to communicate its decision in 2024 and errors in its complaint handling. This is an appropriate remedy. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its assessment of her housing priority and an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman