The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing. There was no fault in the Council closing his housing application. Any failure to offer Mr X a review of that decision is unlikely to have affected the result significantly. We cannot consider the Council’s management of its social housing or housing let on a long lease. Other points do not cause Mr X a significant enough injustice to investigate or have not been through the Council’s complaint procedure.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing situation, especially his housing application. He says the Council’s actions have resulted in him and his household remaining in overcrowded housing.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) We cannot investigate complaints about the management of housing let on a long lease by a council that is a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended) 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Removing Mr X’s application from the housing list The Council removed Mr X from the housing list because he had bought his home from the Council. That was in line with the Council’s policy, so I do not find fault with the Council here. Nor did the Council have a particular duty to warn Mr X about this policy before he bought his home.
Mr X says the Council did not tell him about his legal right to ask the Council to review the decision. However, the decision to remove Mr X from the list because he owned a home was in line with the Council’s policy. The Council would also have been mindful of the shortage of social housing for people who cannot afford to buy anywhere. So, even had Mr X known about his review right and sought a review, it is unlikely on the balance of probabilities to have changed the Council’s decision. Therefore it is unlikely any failure to tell Mr X about his review right disadvantaged him significantly enough in practical terms for us to investigate.
Possible homelessness Mr X says the Council has not given him, or another adult and children, who live with him, high priority on the housing list or treated them as homeless. Mr X owns his property and the Council does not appear to have reason to believe he is homeless. If Mr X believes he is homeless despite owning a home, he can explain his reasons clearly to the Council, which can decide the matter. On the information I have, I see no fault by the Council causing Mr X a significant injustice at present.
If the other adult and children are usually members of Mr X’s household, I do not see any fault in the Council removing the whole household from the housing list because Mr X had bought his home. If they are not usually members of Mr X’s household, or if there is any other reason they might be homeless, we have no consent from the other adult for Mr X to complain for them. This point does not directly cause Mr X a significant injustice. The other adult can contact the Council for homelessness help if they believe they need it.
Information from Council about renting privately The Council’s final response to Mr X’s complaint suggested Mr X could explore renting privately. It said the Council could ‘help those that are eligible to access the private rental sector’ and advised Mr X which team at the Council to contact about this. Mr X says he then contacted that team but was not offered help with private renting as the Council would not act as guarantor.
This is a new matter, which arose after the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint and was not part of his complaint to the Council. If Mr X wants to pursue this point, he should take it through the Council’s complaint procedure first. I also note the Council’s final response only said the Council might help ‘…those that are eligible…’ It did not guarantee the Council would definitely help Mr X rent a private property he wanted.
Other matters Mr X is unhappy with some Council communications, including its handling of telephone calls, and with its complaint-handling, including that it did not deal with every point in his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about communications and complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Mr X’s correspondence with the Council also mentioned unhappiness with the Council’s management of the Council estate where he lives. Those points concern the Council’s actions, as a registered social housing provider, about its management of its social housing and leasehold matters. The law prevents us investigating such matters, as paragraphs 3 and 4 explained.
This decision statement has not necessarily dealt with every point Mr X raised in his complaints to the Council. However, I have dealt with all the points about alleged fault by the Council that might have caused Mr X an injustice significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing the complaint. I consider that is a proportionate approach.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There was no fault in the Council closing his housing application. Any failure to offer a review of that decision is unlikely to have caused a significant injustice. We cannot consider the management of social housing or housing let on a long lease. Other matters did not cause Mr X a significant enough injustice to investigate, have not been through the Council’s complaint procedure, or would be disproportionate to investigate alone.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman