Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault that would justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that some local housing associations have different criteria for allocating properties than the Council. He said as a result, he has successfully bid on a property through the Council’s housing register but the housing association has then declined his bid.
2. Mr X says the Council failed to take his disabilities and housing needs into account and he is currently street homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My findings

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. This Council uses a bidding site where applicants can bid on social housing. Much of the social housing available is owned by housing associations.
8. Under this Council’s allocations scheme, a person is only considered to need an additional bedroom for certain purposes, for instance if the applicant has:
• dependent children;
• dependent relatives; or
• if they need a live-in carer for four nights a week or more.
9. Mr X has been street homeless for several years. He has strict criteria about where he will stay, including that he is seeking accommodation which has a certain amount of light and space. Mr X has declined several offers of temporary accommodation.
10. Due to the length of time Mr X has been homeless and the specificity of this housing criteria, the Council exercised discretion to allow him to bid on either one, or two, bedroom properties, despite Mr X not meeting the criteria to do so in its own allocations policy.
11. Mr X came first in bidding for a two-bedroom property managed by a housing association. However the housing association rejected him for the property because it had its own allocations criteria and according to that, he did not require two bedrooms.
12. The Council explained Mr X’s situation to the housing association and tried to challenge the decision but it was unsuccessful.
13. Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council failed to properly consider his medical needs and its equality duties. Mr X also said because it had allowed him to bid on two-bedroom properties, this had likely delayed him being matched with a home he would be accepted for.
14. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigating this complaint further. The housing association is entitled to set its own criteria and in this case, the criteria closely resembled the Council’s own allocations scheme.
15. Due to the challenges the Council had finding Mr X accommodation he would accept, the Council used discretion to award Mr X an additional bedroom need. It also worked to explain Mr X’s situation and challenge the housing association’s decision but this was unsuccessful.
16. I do not consider the Council could have done more in this case and so there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating this complaint further. Mr X is now aware of this housing association’s criteria and it is open to him to bid on one-bedroom properties going forward to have a better chance of being matched with a property.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman