The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application. The Council has offered to put the matter back to its Social Points Panel. It is reasonable for Mr X to take up that offer at this stage.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council had not considered his housing application in line with the law and statutory guidance covering situations where someone wants to move to a particular part of the Council’s area to avoid hardship. Mr X and his wife live in one part of the Council’s area. They want to move to another part to be nearer their work. Mr X says not being able to do this is worsening his family’s financial hardship. He also complains about the Council’s communications and complaint-handling.
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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the relevant law, statutory guidance and Council policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s stage 1 response to Mr X’s complaint said the law and guidance Mr X cited do not apply to Mr X because he already lives in the Council’s area. The Council later accepted that was wrong because the requirements also apply to people wanting to move within the Council’s area, as Mr X does.
The Council argued the fault had not disadvantaged Mr X because its Social Points Panel had anyway considered the relevant circumstances and decided Mr X’s case did not meet the threshold of ‘hardship’ that would merit more priority for rehousing. Mr X told us the Panel only considered one of the relevant points in the statutory guidance, not all the relevant points. The Council’s final response to Mr X’s complaint said if Mr X had further evidence on any of the relevant points in the statutory guidance (which it listed), he could supply it and the Panel would reconsider the case.
It is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide how much priority to give a particular housing application. There has been some fault here. However, Mr X’s arguments to us that the Council has not considered all the relevant parts of the guidance are arguments about points the Council has offered to reconsider. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take up the Council’s offer and put forward evidence on all the relevant points for the Council to reconsider before the Ombudsman gets further involved. It is in Mr X’s and the Council’s interests, and a better use of public resources, to resolve such matters locally where possible.
If Mr X remains dissatisfied after the Council’s reconsideration, that would be a fresh complaint he could bring to the Ombudsman, which we could then consider whether to investigate.
The Council has apologised for inadequate communications with Mr X, including delayed complaint-handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. It also seems unlikely we would ask the Council for more than the apology it has given here.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for Mr X to take up the Council’s offer to put the matter back before its Social Points Panel at this stage. It would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s communications and complaint-handling in isolation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman