Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to consider all the relevant information when reaching its decision to decline his application to join the Housing Register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council failed to consider all the relevant information when reaching its decision to decline his application to join the Housing Register. Mr B told us he is living with his mother which is causing great strain to both of them.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr B and the Council provided, the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy and Mr B’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B told us he returned to the UK in 2017 because his mother could not leave hospital to return home unless her home was adapted to meet her needs. He moved into his mother’s home to work with social services on implementing the changes. Mr B told us the plan was he would remain in the house for another 12 months while his mother had two operations and got used to the adaptations. He says his mother’s house is now adapted for her alone. Mr B told us his mother’s carers and numerous medical personnel cannot control her environment while he is living in the house.
5. In late 2018 Mr B applied to the Council for rehousing in a location near his mother if possible. He has confirmed he made his application because of the impact he is having on his mother’s environment. He says the Council declined his application on the basis he was living in a property with three bedrooms. But he says the Council failed to consider the detrimental effect on his mother’s welfare of him being in the house full-time. He says the Council failed to consult medical professionals, the care provider or social services.
6. A council housing allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to certain groups of applicants such as people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)).
7. Had it been Mr B’s mother who had applied to join the Housing Register on medical and welfare grounds, we would expect the Council to seek and consider all relevant information about her housing needs. But, in this case, it is Mr B, not his mother, who has applied to join the Council’s Housing Register. The Council must apply is Housing Allocation Policy when it is allocating its housing. Applicants complete a self-assessment questionnaire which prompts them to provide information about their housing needs. The Council seeks supporting information of those needs, for example, evidence of how applicants’ current accommodation affects their medical needs.
8. Mr B applied to the Council on the basis of the effect on his mother of his presence in her home. If he moved, his mother would stay in her adapted accommodation rather than moving with him as part of his household. The Council has reviewed its initial decision to decline Mr B’s application but it did not change its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this case because the Council was not obliged to take account of information about Mr B’s mother when it was Mr B who had applied for housing. It was Mr B’s housing needs which the Council needed to consider rather than his mother’s.
9. Mr B has complained that he experienced delays and inconvenience because of the way the Council has dealt with the matter. We would not deal with a standalone complaint about the way the Council has dealt with the matter when we are not investigating the issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman