The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to remove his priority on the housing register because he refused an offer of housing.
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 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)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes information about the housing offer and correspondence about the Council’s decision to remove priority. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council awarded band B priority on the housing register because Mr X is living in very overcrowded conditions. On the registration form Mr X listed some preferred areas for a new home, due to schools, but no areas were excluded.
The Council offered a new home. Mr X rejected it and said it was too far away. The Council accepted he had a good reason to refuse the offer. The Council agreed with the family that it would offer a property on the south side of the city.
The Council made another offer. Mr X refused the property; he referred to the distance to schools and work and said the property has cracks and leaks.
The Council decided Mr X did not have a good reason to refuse the property and it removed his priority.
Mr X challenged the decision. He provided more information about why it would be logistically hard to take all his children to school and for him to get to work. He referred to the condition of the property and said the area is not suitable for his ethnic group. He said the schools in the area were full.
The Council considered the appeal but confirmed its decision to remove the priority. It said it has a duty to alleviate the overcrowding and had done this by offering a property of the correct size. It said there are good public transport links or a relatively short drive to school and work. It gave advice about seeking a school transfer or, as an alternative, said the children may be eligible for a school travel pass. The Council decided Mr X had not shown sufficient grounds to reject the property which would have resolved his statutory overcrowding. The Council confirmed it would remove his priority for 12 months.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Council will remove priority for 12 months if someone refuses an offer of accommodation without good reason. The Council considered Mr X’s reasons for refusal but decided they were not sufficient to warrant refusal. In reaching this decision the Council considered Mr X’s points about travel and schools and any issues regarding the condition of the property could have been resolved before Mr X moved in. In addition, the Council was aware there were no restricted areas stated on the application for priority.
I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the outcome but the decision is in line with the policy and we are not an appeal body. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision and assessed the appeal. I have not seen any fault in the way this was done so there is no reason to start an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman