The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council carrying out its homeless prevention duty since 2023. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to nominate her to a housing association which owns the property in which she is an excluded occupier with her family. She says the Council has failed to prevent her becoming homeless when the landlord takes possession and that it should nominate her to the association as an applicant from the housing register.
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, 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), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X is occupying a housing association property which she moved into with her family in 2019. She says she understood her husband was a joint tenant with his mother but she moved out and in 2023 the landlord served her with a notice to quit because it advised her husband was never a tenant and the property was being sub-let to them, which is a tenancy breach.
Mrs X approached the Council in July 2023 and it accepted her application under the homelessness prevention duty under the Housing Act 1996. Under this duty the Council has to help the tenant retain their accommodation if possible and the applicant has to make efforts to find alternative accommodation before they become homeless.
In this case Mrs X was not a tenant and so the Council could not assist with rental payments or discretionary housing payment. The landlord placed them on a licence until it could gain possession of the property. The Council identified a private rented property in January 2024 through an agency but Mrs X did not accept the property and it was re-offered to another applicant. Because Mrs X had been under the prevention duty for more than 56 days the Council could have ended its duty but it extended it under discretionary powers.
Mrs X has asked the Council to nominate her to the housing association but it cannot prevent the landlord from taking possession and when this happens the landlord will want to offer it to a high-priority applicant. It would be unreasonable for the Council to overlook other higher priority applicants for nomination who are eligible under its allocations policy. Mrs X currently only has Band C priority because the Council has not accepted a full homelessness duty at this stage.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
There is insufficient evidence of any fault in the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s application.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council carrying out its homeless prevention duty since 2023. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman