Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s initial refusal of her request for a transfer, which was reversed at the review stage.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council missed an opportunity to rehouse her following domestic abuse and kept her in limbo for five weeks, which caused significant distress.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Ms X fled domestic abuse and was placed in supported accommodation by Council B. She said Council B advised her to bid on all available properties, following which she moved to address 1 in this Council’s area in February 2024.
7. In early April 2024, Ms X applied to this Council for a transfer. She said she had previously fled domestic abuse, and her current property was too far from her child’s school. The Council refused the request because she had been living at address 1 for less than 12 months and it had not identified an urgent need to move. It explained she could ask for a review of its decision.
8. Ms X asked for a review and provided further information about her situation. On review, the Council accepted the transfer application and awarded priority band C. In its complaint response, it explained why the application did not meet the criteria for priority band B.
9. Following the review decision, the Council also considered whether Ms X was homeless on the basis it was not reasonable for her to continue to live at address 1. It wrote to her with its decision that she was not legally homeless and explained she could ask for a review of that decision if she disagreed with it.
10. The Council told us that since the complaint was made, it had accepted a main homelessness duty, cleared Ms X’s rent arrears and arranged alternative social housing for Ms X.

My assessment

11. The Council considered Ms X’s transfer request in line with its published allocations scheme. On review, it considered the additional information she provided and overturned that decision. That is the purpose of the review process and there was no delay by the Council in considering the review. The Council awarded priority band C, which is in line with its published scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the way the Council handled the housing register application to justify further investigation.
12. The Council also considered whether Ms X was legally homeless. It initially decided she was not. Ms X had rights of review and appeal if she disagreed with that decision, and it was reasonable for her to exercise these. Therefore, we will not consider that part of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman