Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss Y’s housing priority as there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the complaint about how the Council considered Miss Y’s homelessness application as it is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the county court.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of Miss Y. She complained that the Council:

• Failed to consider Miss Y’s urgent need for rehousing when refusing her request for band A priority on the housing register and when it failed to offer properties to Miss Y in her preferred areas.
• Failed to accept the correct homelessness duty for Miss Y and wrongly decided to reassess her homelessness application.

2. Miss X says that as a result Miss Y is continuing to live in an unsafe environment which is affecting her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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))
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss Y made an application to join the housing register. The Council decided she qualified for the housing register and awarded priority band C. Miss X asked the Council to increase Miss Y’s priority to band A. Miss Y felt unsafe due to incidents in a neighbouring property and this was affecting her mental health. The Council awarded band B priority to Miss Y. Miss X requested a review of this decision. The Council considered Miss X’s review. It decided Miss Y should remain in priority band B but backdated the priority to an earlier date.
9. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what housing priority the Council should award to an applicant. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper process when reaching its decision.
10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Miss Y’s housing priority. The Council’s letter notifying Miss X’s of its review decision shows it considered Miss X’s reasons for requesting band A. The letter also set out the information it considered including medical reports and information from the police. The letter explained why it considered Miss X’s reasons and the information did not justify increasing Miss Y’s housing priority to band A. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation as the Council considered the relevant information and explained its reasons for its decision
11. In response to Miss X’s complaint and in its review response, the Council explained that Miss Y did not qualify for the properties in her preferred areas. This was because the properties were restricted to applicants with local connection to those areas. Councils must also allocate properties in accordance with their housing allocations scheme. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify in investigation into this aspect of Miss X’s complaint.
12. Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision on Miss Y’s homelessness application. The Council overturned its decision to accept the prevention duty and decided to reassess Miss Y’s application. Miss X considers the Council has sufficient information to accept the relief duty to Miss Y.
13. We will not generally investigate complaints where the person complaining can appeal to a court, unless it is not reasonable to expect them to do so. Miss X has the right to appeal to the county court against the Council’s review decision on a point of law as she considers the Council should have decided what duty it accepts. The Council notified Miss X of her right to appeal to the county court, so it is reasonable to expect her to appeal. Furthermore, we cannot come to our own view on what homelessness duty the Council should accept or interfere in its assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman