Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s rejection of her request to backdate her housing application priority. She also says that she found the officer dealing with her application slow to communicate with her to update her about her case. She wants the Council to make her a suitable offer without having to go into temporary accommodation if she is made homeless.

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 the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says that her housing application was banded as Band 2 under the housing register priority. She has mental health problems and asked to be considered for a direct offer under the allocations scheme. Direct offers are made outside the normal bidding process under the choice-based lettings scheme. She also asked for her banding level to be backdated 6 months to an earlier date.
6. The Council told her that she was accepted for a direct offer but that that there was no guarantee of an offer in the short term and that she should continue bidding under the normal allocations procedure. The Council has a high demand for housing and there is no requirement for it to rehouse an applicant within a particular timescale. Many applicants have been waiting for an offer for several years.
7. Miss X also complained about poor communication from an officer who had been involved with a previous homelessness application. She is not currently homeless at the time of her complaint to us and there is no duty to provide a dedicated case officer for applicants who are on the housing register.
8. There is evidence that the officer was in contact with Miss X’s representative and that he had given updated advice that should she become homeless the Council would have a duty to provide temporary accommodation under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7 requirements. The representative expressed a view that this would not be suitable for Miss X’s condition but it nevertheless remains a statutory duty for the housing authority.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman