Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow her to remain on the housing register because it says her savings are higher than the threshold in its housing allocations scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register and in December 2020 she submitted a renewal form. The Council noticed on this form that she declared savings of £125,000 when the Council’s allocations scheme bars applicants from over £30,000 savings. Miss X was notified by the Council that her application was to be removed because she was not eligible. She complained to the Council and it accepted that it had missed a previous declaration of the amount. However, the previous error did not mean that she should be eligible any longer.
7. Miss X says she broke her ankle and should be admitted to the register on medical grounds. the Council disputed her claim that this indicated she had medical needs related to her current housing. it told her that she would remain ineligible.
8. In September 2021 Miss X applied to the Council as being threatened with homelessness by her landlord. The Council allowed her to be included on the housing register temporarily as part of its homeless prevention duty under the Housing Act 1996.
9. In January 2022 Miss X’s landlord contacted the Council and advised it that the section 21 possession notice it had served on Miss X was invalid and that it had been withdrawn. This meant that Miss X was no longer threatened with homelessness and that as a result the housing register application was withdrawn as it no longer applied.
10. Miss X made a further complaint. We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the applicant believes that the council should have given more priority to the application to move. It may be the case that, although they need to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need.
11. In this case the Council waived the restriction on personal savings as part of its homeless prevention duty. Now this no longer applies it has considered that she no longer meets the requirements of the allocation scheme because she has in excess of the £30,000 limit in savings. Miss X had an opportunity to ask for a review of the Council’s decision and she has now submitted a review request which will be determined in due course.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman