Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to allow her onto its housing register because she is an owner-occupier. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council refusing to allow her to register on the housing waiting list. She says she cannot afford to live in her home and that it should take her circumstances into account and be more flexible with its policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Miss X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X applied to the Council for housing because she cannot afford to maintain her present home for which she has a mortgage. The Council’s allocations policy does not permit home owners to apply for housing unless they are homeless. The Council interviewed Miss X to consider whether her case merited an exception to the policy.
5. Miss X says the Council asked for financial details which she considers to be private information and unnecessary for a housing application. The Council says it requires these because it has to assess if there are other housing options available. Miss X also complained about the questions asked by the interviewing officer and that he used examples of other applicants’ circumstances which may have breached data protection regulations. The Council says no personal details were disclosed.
6. We do not investigate complaints just because the complainant feels they should be rehoused by a council. Unless there is fault in the assessment of the application or policy we would not question the merits of the decision itself. If the Council had disclosed any personal data, the persons involved would be able to make a complaint to the office of the Information Commissioner which is the proper authority to deal with such matters.
7. The Council considered Miss X’s application even though its policy specifically excludes owners so it did not fail to exercise any discretion to make an exception. Miss X did not provide all the required information for it to conclude the assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman