Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to arson at her council property. It would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right to appeal the Council’s decision she was not homeless and we do not have the power to investigate the Council’s actions as a social landlord.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action after arson at her council home. She says it delayed repairing a damaged window, delayed considering her homelessness application, and did not provide her alternative accommodation. She also complains of poor complaint handling. 

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. 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 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X is a council tenant. She approached the Council after arson in the garden of her council property. She explained her window was damaged and she felt unsafe in her home following the incident. She asked the Council to move her to alternative accommodation and made a homelessness application.
9. The Council decided Miss X was not homeless because she remained a council tenant and it considered her home reasonable to occupy. In reaching this decision, it took account of the police investigation, which found the incident was not targeted and that the perpetrator had been arrested. The decision explained her statutory review rights. We will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for Miss X to seek a review of the not homeless decision and appeal to the county court if the review was unsuccessful.
10. Miss X also complains the Council delayed considering her homelessness application. The Council made enquiries, including with the police, and issued a decision within three weeks. As the Council decided Miss X was not homeless, this wait did not result in a loss of interim accommodation. Although the wait caused uncertainty, the injustice arising from the delay is not significant enough to justify investigation. We will not investigate this complaint point. 
11. Miss X complains the Council delayed repairing the window that was damaged in the fire. Maintenance of its housing stock falls under the Council’s role as a social landlord. We do not have the power to consider the Council’s social landlord functions so we cannot investigate this part of the complaint.
12. Miss X also complains of poor communication and complaint handling. We will not investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. It would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her statutory right to appeal the Council’s decision she was not homeless and we do not have the power to investigate the Council’s actions as a social landlord.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman