The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application. Any investigation is unlikely to find enough evidence the Council is at fault for not yet rehousing Mr X.
The complaint
Mr X complains he has been bidding for social housing for around three years without success. He does not believe the Council has done enough to help him. He wants the Council to give his housing application more priority. Mr X says not moving home is causing him stress and anxiety.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
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
Mr X lives outside the Council’s area. He is on the housing register for social housing in the Council’s area.
The law says the Council can only give social housing in line with its housing allocations policy. So the key point here is whether the Council has done that.
Mr X argues the Council has not given his application enough priority, especially because of his medical needs. However, Mr X already has the highest level of priority for an applicant with medical need who has not lived in the Council’s area for five years. That is in line with his circumstances and the Council’s policy. There is no fault by the Council here.
Mr X is dissatisfied he has been bidding for housing on the register for around three years without success. However, given the high demand for social housing, especially in London, it is not unusual for applicants to wait many years. Mr X’s application is in Band B2, so applicants in Bands A and B1 have higher priority than him when bidding. The number of applicants in each band changes over time, as does the number and banding of applicants bidding for particular properties. The Council states Mr X is limiting his bids to a particular part of the borough. That is Mr X’s right, of course. However, it does reduce the number of properties he has a chance of getting, which will extend how long it might take him to bid successfully. I appreciate Mr X’s frustration at not being rehoused yet. However, the time he has been on the housing register does not in itself automatically suggest fault by the Council.
The Council has no duty actually to give Mr X social housing within any particular timeframe or at all. Its duty here is just to let Mr X and other applicants bid with appropriate priority for vacant social housing and then to allocate it in line with the Council’s allocations policy. The evidence suggests the Council has done that. Mr X’s lack of success so far seems to be because demand for social housing significantly outstrips supply, not because of fault by the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any investigation is unlikely to find fault by the Council preventing Mr X being rehoused.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman