The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X’s housing application. On some points there is not enough evidence of fault. Other points have not caused Miss X a significant enough injustice for us to investigate.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her housing application. She says this has caused her to miss offers of housing and caused distress and hardship to her and her family. Miss X wants the Council to offer her a property she says the Council wrongly gave to someone else.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Properties Miss X argues the Council should have offered her Miss X says a property she bid for in July 2021 wrongly went to someone else with less priority. The Council says it did not offer this to Miss X because the property did not meet her mobility needs as it understood them at the time. There is not enough evidence of fault here.
Miss X says the Council wrongly did not offer her two other properties she bid for. The Council says it offered them both to other people as management transfers. The Council’s housing allocations policy allows it to do that. I do not see evidence of fault here.
Whether the Council wrongly says Miss X refused several offers Applicants who refuse more than three reasonable offers within six months will be suspended from bidding for six months. Miss X says the Council’s records wrongly show she rejected several properties.
Property Miss X bid for in August 2020 – The Council and Miss X disagree about whether Miss X refused this or said she would accept it if she could remove the stairlift. There is no evidence the Council treating this as a refusal led to the Council saying she had refused over three offers within six months. So, whether or not there was fault by the Council here, Miss X has not suffered a significant injustice on this point.
Property Miss X bid for in August 2021 – The Council says it offered this property to someone else as a management transfer and it did not say Miss X had refused it. The list Miss X sent us from her housing file does not say Miss X ‘refused’ this. It says ‘rejected’ and has a note ‘LL reject…’ That is consistent with the Council recording the landlord had rejected Miss X’s bid. The Council did not treat Miss X as refusing this property. I do not see any fault here.
Property Miss X bid for in December 2021 – The list Miss X sent us from her housing file says the property was ‘offered elsewhere,’ not ‘refused.’ The evidence does not suggest the Council treated Miss X as refusing this property.
Medical priority given to Miss X’s application The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint said she had Band A priority and needed a category ‘DSL3’ property, which related to medical needs. However, when Miss X saw her housing file, it contained a report from November 2021 suggesting she should have no medical priority and no ‘DSL3’ need.
I checked this with the Council. It appears the November 2021 report did not change Miss X’s priority at that time. So the apparent inconsistency did not cause her any injustice.
Since the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint on 14 February 2022, it has assessed new information and reduced Miss X’s priority to Band B. That is a new matter, not part of the complaint to the Council that I am considering. If Miss X wants to complain about new matters, she should use the Council’s review or complaint procedure first.
Other points Miss X says her housing file contains various errors. The law on data protection gives Miss X the right to ask the Council to correct any inaccuracies (the ‘right to rectification’). If Miss X asks for this and is unhappy with the Council’s response, she could go to the Information Commissioner, who has the expertise and powers to decide such points. It would be more appropriate for Miss X to contact the Council and, if necessary, the Information Commissioner about this point.
The Council apologised for not replying to some of Miss X’s requests for clarification. In the circumstances I do not see grounds to ask for more than this.
Miss X told us she is dissatisfied with her housing association landlord about disrepair in her home. That is a matter for her to raise with her landlord and, if applicable, with the Housing Ombudsman Service. It is not a matter for us.
Miss X says the Council was not clear about how long rehousing might take. That does not seem to have been part of her complaint to the Council, so I have not considered it. Anyway, we could not achieve much on this point. Even for people with high priority, rehousing can take a long time.
Miss X says she should have an assigned housing officer but does not. I have seen no evidence the Council should have given Miss X a named officer. Moreover, the Council’s response to her complaint said an officer would contact her about her current situation. I cannot achieve more than that.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault on some points or of significant injustice on other points. The alleged inaccuracies on her file are more appropriately for the Information Commissioner if Miss X cannot resolve this with the Council. It would be disproportionate to pursue other parts of the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman