Summary: We will not investigate this housing complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the auto-bidding system for the housing register does not work. He also says the Council has not responded to his homelessness application and his priority date on the housing register should be 2015, not 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not investigate complaints that we have already decided.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered Mr X’s previous complaint to us and comments he made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Previous LGO complaint

5. Mr X complained his housing register priority date should be 2015, not 2018. We decided there was insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the Council’s decision that his priority date is 2018.

What happened

6. Mr X is on the housing register. He is in band B1 and his priority date is November 2018. Mr X is registered for auto-bidding which means the system places a bid for properties which meet Mr X’s preferences and registration details. Mr X has placed restrictions on the type of property he is willing to live in and the area. The Council told Mr X these restrictions mean he will have to wait longer for accommodation. Mr X has said he does not want to live in private rented accommodation or to stay in emergency accommodation. Mr X says he is street homeless.
7. Mr X applied as homeless to the Council. He said he was sleeping in his car at a particular location. The Council closed his application because it decided he was not homeless. On several occasions, day and night, the Council had checked the location provided by Mr X for his car but found no evidence that Mr X was sleeping there. The Council wrote to Mr X to say it had closed his application. The Council signposted him to sources of housing advice.
8. Mr X complained that the auto-bidding did not work and he had not been told the outcome of the homelessness application. In response the Council explained there had been a problem with the auto-bidding but the system was fixed within 10 days. It told him he did not miss out on any properties while the auto-bidding was not working. It explained he had been told the outcome of his housing application. Mr X has repeated that he missed out on properties but he has not provided any evidence to support this statement.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has explained there was a problem with the auto-bidding which was quickly repaired and did not have an impact on Mr X. In addition, the Council gave Mr X the outcome of his homelessness application. It also advised that he could improve his chances of being offered a home if he widened the areas he will live in and the property type. The Council has also offered housing advice.
10. I will not investigate the complaint that Mr X’s priority date should be in 2015. This is because we have previously made a decision about this issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman