Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council considering Mr X for a housing vacancy even though his homeless application had been closed. There is insufficient evidence of any injustice arising from fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about being shortlisted for a vacancy on the housing list without his knowledge of having made a bid on the property. He says his homeless application has been cancelled and he remains homeless since November 2023.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he applied to the Council as homeless in 2023. In November the Council wrote to him and told him that it had decided that he was non-priority homeless and that it had ended its homeless duty towards him. However, after this he was contacted by a housing officer who said he had been shortlisted for a vacancy which he had not placed any bids on.
6. Mr X told the Council he was not interested in the property but complained about his homeless application being cancelled. The Council says he should have been removed from the automatic bidding system which matches homeless applicants with vacancies under the prevention duty. Once his application had been decided and closed he was no longer eligible for automatic bidding and he should not have been considered for the vacancy. Because he did not accept the property I can see insufficient evidence that this caused any significant injustice.
7. Mr X is unhappy with the decision on his homeless application. However, the Council gave him clear details about how to ask for a review under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 if he wished to challenge the decision. This review right includes a further right of appeal to the County Court if it is unsuccessful. It was reasonable for Mr X to pursue this remedy. Mr X remains on the housing register with a Silver Banding priority and this is a separate matter from the homelessness decision.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council considering Mr X for a housing vacancy even though his homeless application had been closed. There is insufficient evidence of any injustice arising from fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman