Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to allocate one of its properties to a homeless applicant rather than Ms X. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that despite her priority banding and having secured top spot in the banding system for a flat she wanted, the Council allocated it to a homeless applicant instead. She says it has also used misleading and dishonest practices by swapping houses she and other members of the community had bid for.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained to the Council because a property she understood she was in line to receive an offer on was instead allocated to a homeless applicant.
7. The Council explained in allocating the property it had properly followed its housing allocations policy and that the advertisement in question had clearly stated “First priority on this shortlist will be homeless applicants where the council has accepted a full homeless duty”. Ms X had been told this in advance of the allocation and it had been explained to her why she would not be priority on the property.
8. This is disappointing for Ms X but there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision to award the property to the homeless applicant rather than Ms X. We cannot question a council’s decision if it has followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The property was highlighted as one where homeless applicants would be given first priority and this is what occurred.
9. The Council has adequately addressed Ms X’s concerns about the mislabelling of another property which she had been to view. It apologised for this, withdrew the offer and allowed Ms X to continue bidding. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation of this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman