The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s change to its housing allocations policy which has affected Miss X’s bidding opportunities. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to change its housing allocation policy. By opening the banding she is in to all applicants she is concerned that after 10 years in temporary accommodation there is now a larger number of applicants bidding on each vacancy.
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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says she has been in temporary accommodation since 2012 when the Council accepted a homeless duty to her. She was placed in Band C and has remained in that banding. She says her current private rented home is in poor condition and she is overcrowded because her children have to share a bedroom.
In March 2022 the Council reviewed its allocations policy. The review determined that under its public sector equality duty the only way to ensure equality of opportunity and access across all client groups was to give all applicants equal rights to bid on all types of social housing. This did not mean that Miss X’s banding was reduced, she remains in Band C with the same priority as before. It does mean however that there are larger numbers of applicants able to bid on vacancies, even though they may not have the same level of housing needs.
Miss X is concerned that after being in temporary accommodation for a decade she may have less opportunity to bid successfully. The Council told her that her priority remains the same and that she should complete a medical assessment for her son if she wishes his needs to be taken into consideration in her assessment.
Councils have powers to devise their own housing allocation policy under the provisions of the Localism Act 2011. In this case the Council carried out the review fairly and the decision was made by the Council’s Cabinet in the interests of equality of opportunity.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s change to its housing allocations policy which has affected Miss X’s bidding opportunities. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman