Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X not being directly offered a property by the Council. This is because we are unlikely to find the Council caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X applied to be rehoused by the Council. She complains the Council promised her a direct offer on a property but did not deliver on that promise. She believes her circumstances warrant a direct offer and wants the Council to make her a direct offer on a specific property.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Miss X.
4. I considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. After Miss X applied for a larger property by telephone, the Council sent her an email. Miss X interpreted both the telephone call and the follow up email as a promise the Council would send her a direct offer on a suitable property.
7. When the Council made it clear to Miss X that she would not be made a direct offer, but is eligible to bid for a property, Miss X complained to the Council. The Council has accepted the wording of the email could have been clearer but says that Miss X was never due a direct offer.
8. The injustice suffered by Miss is the disappointed expectation of a direct offer, caused by the wording of the Council’s email, for which the Council has apologised. The injustice suffered by Miss X is not significant enough to warrant investigation, and the Council’s apology is sufficient remedy.
9. The Council told Miss X the phone call was not recorded, and so it was unable to check what was said by the council officer, as part of its complaint consideration. As the phone call was not recorded, we are unlikely to be able reach a clear view on whether the Council was at fault in the call. Also, even if the telephone call did wrongly raise Miss X’s expectation of a direct offer, that in itself is not significant enough to warrant investigation, as explained above. So, we will not investigate the phone call.
10. I have considered the Council’s housing allocation policy. Miss X’s circumstances do not clearly come within the categories of applicant whom the Council would usually make a direct offer. Many people with genuine housing need, like Miss X, bid for properties rather than getting a direct offer. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to make Miss X a direct offer.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find any fault causing Miss X significant unremedied injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman