Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint the Council will not include his children on his housing application. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council will not include his children on his housing application, even though he receives child benefit for one son, provides the primary financial support and has a court order sharing custody with his ex-wife.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided when he made his complaint. This includes the Council’s final response to his complaint. I have considered the Council’s housing allocations policy and I sent a draft decision to Mr B to invite comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B lives with his wife and step daughter in a two-bedroom council property. He has two sons from his previous marriage and wants the Council to include at least his elder son on his housing application so he can bid for three-bedroom properties. Mr B has explained he has shared custody of his children and they spend half the year with him. He also receives child benefit for his elder son. Mr B says it is inappropriate to expect his sons and his step daughter to share a bedroom when they stay with him. His sons are 12 and 10.
6. The Council has considered Mr B’s application and decided not to include his children on his housing application. While Mr B disagrees with this decision, the Ombudsman can only criticise the Council if there was fault with the way it made its decision. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the Council should include Mr B’s child or children from his previous marriage on his housing application. Further investigation of the complaint is unlikely to find fault because the Council has:
• considered Mr B’s application, his specific circumstances and the evidence he has provided. This includes the evidence that he receives child benefit for his elder son, and the court order relating to custody of the children
• considered its housing allocations policy, which says: ‘Due to the high demand for housing in the district it is not possible to provide family homes to both parents where they have separated and do not live together but share childcare responsibilities and/or have regular access to visits from children from a former relationship'. The policy also says that when deciding on housing priority and property size eligibility, receipt of child benefit is only one aspect of the decision and ‘…not necessarily the determining factor.’
• considered whether there are any exceptional reasons why Mr B’s children should be included on his housing application and explained to Mr B why there are not
• considered relevant case law (Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC 2009) and explained to Mr B how this case law is relevant in his case

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman