Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision he is not eligible for a tenancy succession or its handling of his housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions around the tenancy succession and housing application, and the court is better placed to consider matters relating to possession.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council would not allow him to succeed the tenancy for a property he was living in when the tenancy holder passed away. Mr X also complains the Council pressured him to accept alternative accommodation while restricting his bidding options and threatened to evict him.

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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lived with Mr Y for several years in a property for which Mr Y held a council tenancy. After Mr Y passed away, the Council explained to Mr X he could not succeed the tenancy because Mr X and Mr Y were not spouses, partners, or family members, and therefore he was not eligible for succession.
6. The Council accepted Mr X onto its housing register, awarded him the highest priority banding, and made two direct offers of accommodation.
7. Mr X asked the Council to allow him to remain in the property, explaining he felt staying in the same flat block was necessary due to medical and welfare reasons. The Council explained the flat was a two-bedroom adapted property, and Mr X was not eligible for a tenancy at that property.
8. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to allow him to succeed the tenancy or grant him his own tenancy for the property.
9. The Council must allocate housing in line with the legislation and its policy. The legislation sets out who is eligible to succeed a tenancy, and Mr X did not meet these criteria. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to allow Mr X to succeed the tenancy.
10. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision that Mr X was not eligible for a tenancy at the property. Mr X is eligible to bid on one-bedroom non-adapted properties, whereas the property is a two-bedroom adapted property.
11. Mr X also complains the Council pressured him to accept alternative accommodation and restricted his bidding. The Council says two suitable offers were made to Mr X and that, when making these offers, it warned him that if he did not accept alternative accommodation, he may become homeless if the Council obtained possession of the current property. The Council explained bidding was restricted while an offer was active, but Mr X was able to bid at other times.
12. The Council has accepted it did not properly communicate with Mr X about the possession process and has apologised. If the Council seeks possession of the property, it must apply to the court for a possession order. The court is best placed to decide whether possession should be granted, and the Ombudsman cannot determine this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions around the tenancy succession and housing application, and the court is better placed to consider matters relating to possession.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman