Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social housing application. This is mainly because any fault by the Council did not materially affect its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her application to move to a larger home. She says this means her family suffers stress and inconvenience from a lack of space and privacy.

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))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s housing allocation scheme. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X and her family live in a two-bedroomed property. The family consists of Mrs X, her husband, a daughter and two sons.
6. The Council wrongly said Mrs X had two daughters and a son. It apologised for this. Mrs X argues this error affected the Council’s assessment of whether her home is statutorily overcrowded (a legal definition of severe overcrowding).
7. The Council said the property had three rooms available for sleeping, so one could be for Mrs X and her husband, one for the two children of the same sex and one for the child of the other sex. That distribution of people and rooms would be the same for two daughters and a son as for two sons and a daughter. So I do not agree the error about the children materially affected the Council’s assessment of the overcrowding. Therefore the Council’s apology was enough remedy for the error.
8. Mrs X argues the Council was wrong to suggest the living room could be used for sleeping when the Council calculated whether the property was statutorily overcrowded. The law on statutory overcrowding says councils should do that when calculating. So there was no fault by the Council here.
9. Mrs X said the Council was wrong to suggest her daughter could sleep in the living room. I understand how the wording of the Council’s letter might be taken that way. However, my understanding is that the Council was simply pointing out that, in terms of statutory overcrowding, three rooms were available for sleeping. It is for the family to decide whether to use all three rooms for sleeping and, if so, to decide for themselves who should sleep where.
10. Mrs X wants the Council to give her housing application higher priority. She says the Council has not properly considered the stress, lack of privacy and disruption resulting from five people sharing a two-bedroomed home. The Council’s housing allocation policy says a family such as Mrs X’s should have three bedrooms. The Council has given Mrs X’s application Band 3 priority, which its policy says is for households needing one more bedroom. Therefore, the Council has recognised the overcrowding in line with its policy. I see no fault in the level of priority the Council has given Mrs X’s application. I do not criticise the Council for not giving higher priority.
11. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published allocation scheme policy. Here, the evidence suggests the Council has done that. I appreciate Mrs X has been waiting many years for a move and her situation is difficult. However, that seems to be because demand for social housing significantly outstrips supply, not because of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council properly reached its decisions about overcrowding and the priority the application should have. The Council’s apology for the error about the sexes of Mrs X’s children was enough remedy for that point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman