Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr and Mrs X’s housing. Parts of the complaint are late without good enough reason to accept them now. Mr and Mrs X could have used their review and appeal rights on some points. Investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision-making since July 2023 about medical priority and overcrowding priority for the housing application.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s handling of their housing concerns. They say this has adversely affected their family life and has left them living in overcrowded and inadequate accommodation.

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 late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or it would be, or would have been, reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
7. 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)
8. 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 allocations scheme.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by the complainant, the law on statutory overcrowding and the Council’s housing allocations scheme.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Mr and Mrs X complained to us in July 2024. Their complaint covers events since around 2013. This includes their homelessness up to 2015 and their wish to move from their current home since 2016. The restriction in paragraph 3 applies to the complaint about events before July 2023. Mr and Mrs X would have known they were dissatisfied with their housing situation throughout. I see no reason they could not reasonably have complained to us much sooner. So there is not good enough reason to accept the late parts of the complaint now. In addition, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now about events so long ago.
12. Also, Mr and Mrs X would have had a right to ask the Council to review the suitability of their homelessness temporary accommodation when the Council offered it and of the long-term accommodation the Council offered to end its homelessness duty in 2015. If the Council had made an unfavourable review decision, Mr and Mrs X would have had the right to go to the county court on a point of law. The question of suitability of accommodation, as legally defined, is a point of law. Mr and Mrs X could reasonably have used those rights at the time. So the points in paragraphs 4 and 6 also apply to some older events.
13. I have considered the Council’s key actions since July 2023 on Mr and Mrs X’s application to move from their home.
14. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to give their application extra points for medical need to move. The Council considered the medical information, sought advice from its medical adviser and decided the circumstances did not meet the threshold for medical priority in its allocations scheme.
15. As paragraph 7 explained, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We consider whether the Council properly reached its decision. The evidence suggests the Council followed its procedure, considered the information it had, took account of its scheme and had reasons for its decision. So the Council reached its decision properly. That means, as paragraph 7 explained, we cannot criticise the decision, although Mr and Mrs X can disagree with the decision. Any investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault here.
16. Mr and Mrs X argue the Council has not properly considered the overcrowding in their home, where three people live in a property with a bedroom, reception room, kitchen and bathroom.
17. The Council must consider overcrowding in two ways. The first is to decide if the property is statutorily overcrowded. The law sets out how to measure this. If statutory overcrowding exists, the Council will give the application an extra 20 points. The law is clear that assessments for statutory overcrowding must treat both bedrooms and living rooms as rooms available for sleeping. The Council correctly calculated Mr and Mrs X’s home is not statutorily overcrowded. Mr and Mrs X object to the Council treating their living room as sleeping accommodation. However, the Council must follow the law, so it was not at fault. Whether Mr and Mrs X actually use the living room for someone to sleep in is their own decision.
18. The other way the Council must consider overcrowding applies to properties that are not statutorily overcrowded but where the Council’s own scheme means the Council should treat the household as not having enough bedrooms. The Council need not treat living rooms as sleeping accommodation for this assessment. Under the Council’s scheme, Mr and Mrs X’s household needs two bedrooms. Therefore the Council has given their application 50 points for lacking one bedroom. That is in line with the Council’s scheme, so there is no fault there.
19. The Council has no duty necessarily to give Mr and Mrs X a different home. Its duty here is just to consider them for vacant social housing in line with the Council’s scheme. The evidence suggests it has done that. Mr and Mrs X’s lack of success in moving so far is because demand for social housing significantly outstrips supply, not because of fault by the Council.
20. Mr and Mrs X say the Council has failed to renovate a two-bedroom property that it could have renovated and made available on the housing register. This point concerns the Council’s management of its social housing. As paragraph 5 said, the law prevents us considering that.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. Parts of the complaint are late without good enough reason to accept them now. Mr and Mrs X could have used their review and appeal right on some points. Investigation is unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision-making since July 2023 about medical priority and overcrowding priority for the housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman