Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way a housing company, acting on behalf of the Council, treated him when he was homeless. This is because there is insufficient evidence the injustice Mr B has described is a result of fault in the housing allocation process and it was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to seek a review and then go to the county court if he wished to challenge the suitability of the property offered to him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, has complained about the way a housing company, acting on behalf of the Council, treated him when he was homeless. He told us this has caused him financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. 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)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council or a body acting on its behalf, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the Council’s housing allocation scheme and the housing company’s responses to his complaint. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. In August 2018 the housing company offered Mr B a property. He had not made a bid for it under the housing allocations system because he felt it was too far for his children’s school. He had made bids for other properties. Mr B says he understood he had to accept the offer or stay in his temporary accommodation. But Mr B told us he felt pressured into accepting the offer because of the condition of his temporary accommodation and his need for somewhere to live.
9. The Council’s allocations policy says when it has accepted a full housing duty under the provisions of the homelessness legislation (part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended), it is entitled to make a direct offer which will fully end its homelessness duty as long as the applicant has sufficient priority for rehousing under the scheme at that date to enable it to make a direct offer. So it was not fault for the Council to make direct offer to Mr B even though he was making bids for other properties.
10. Mr B says the housing company called him a few days after offering him the property. This was to tell him it was withdrawing the offer because the current tenant was no longer leaving. That was a day after he had provided all the documentation for accepting the house. Mr B remains suspicious of the housing company’s reasons for withdrawing the offer. He says his MP told him the housing company had refused to let him move because the property had been empty for too long and so would be unsuitable. He says the situation caused him confusion with his council tax account and uncertainty about whether to find a new school for his children.
11. The Council advertises properties so applicants can place bids for them. They then offer the property to the applicant in greatest housing need. Sometimes tenants may withdraw their notice, for example this may happen if the property they are moving to is unexpectedly not ready for occupation. In those circumstances it is not fault for a council or a body acting on its behalf to withdraw the offer until the situation is resolved. A tenant’s withdrawal of a notice to terminate a tenancy is usually something which is outside a council’s control. In those circumstances it is the tenant’s change of mind which is the cause of the problem.
12. Three weeks later the housing company told Mr B’s MP the tenant may have abandoned the house and it was in the process of dealing with this. Mr B told his MP the neighbours had told him the house was empty. The housing company says the tenant resubmitted notice and so it was able to re-offer the house to Mr B during September 2018. When responding to Mr B’s complaint the housing company said there was still outstanding work to be done to the property when he viewed it in October 2018. It was not fault for the housing company to tell Mr B’s MP Mr B could not move straightaway because of the need to make the property suitable for letting.
13. We cannot investigate a complaint about the length of time the housing company took to get the property ready for occupation. This is because repairs and maintenance of the Council’s social housing is part of its landlord role which is outside our jurisdiction.
14. In November 2018 Mr B took up the tenancy of the property. He has told us about the difficulties he experiences with getting his children to school. He feels the housing company manipulated the allocation process and the Council and the housing company failed to take his complaint seriously.
15. Mr B had the right to seek a review of the Council’s decision to end its housing duty to him if he considered the offer it had made was unsuitable. He could have done so even if he had accepted the offer. If a review is unsuccessful, there is then a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. It was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to seek a review and then go to the county court if he wished to challenge the suitability of the property. That is because this is the specific method the law provides for such challenges. The county court has powers we do not have to vary confirm or quash the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence the injustice Mr B has described is a result of fault in the Council’s housing allocation process and it was not unreasonable to expect Mr B to seek a review and then go to the county court if he wished to challenge the suitability of the property offered to him.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman