Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to rehouse her because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to rehouse her, despite a legally bi8ding agreement to do so as part of child protection processes. Ms X says Council failures mean her daughter has not had the protection she was entitled to and Ms X is unable to protect her.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to have asked for a council review or appeal.

(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 complained the Council had not honoured a legally binding agreement, made as part of child protection process, to rehouse her family. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not know what agreement she was referring to.
6. Ms X’s child was subject to a child protection plan during 2023. As part of that plan, the social worker wrote a letter to the housing team to support a request for rehousing. They also made a referral to the Pan-London Housing Reciprocal, coordinated by Safer London, which is a scheme that arranges social tenancy swaps for tenants at risk of violence and abuse.
7. The Council placed Ms X on its housing register and awarded band 2 in January 2024. It told us it had not received a request from Ms X to review that decision.
8. Since then, Ms X has been biding for properties through the housing register but has not yet been successful. In response to her complaint about a lack of progress with rehousing, the Council explained that there were 426 households waiting for a three bedroom property in band 2. It also set out other options she could explore, such as a mutual exchange.

My assessment

9. The Council is not aware of an agreement to rehouse the family. The Child Protection records I have seen do not refer to any such agreement, although they do set out steps for the social worker to take to support Ms X’s request for rehousing, which were taken in 2023 and early 2024.
10. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas and this is particularly acute in London. But this is outside the Council’s control. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. The Council accepted a housing register application and awarded band 2, which is a high priority band that recognises her need for rehousing. Based on the information available, that decision was in line with its published scheme. Ms X has not specifically complained about the priority band awarded. However, she would have had the right to ask for a review of that decision if she disagreed with it and its was reasonable for her to do so.
12. Based on the above, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement so we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman