Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. This is because any minor fault in the way it reached its decision did not cause Mr B a significant injustice. We will also not investigate the Council’s refusal to add Mr B to his parents’ tenancy as we have no jurisdiction to consider this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains the Council:
• placed him in the wrong band on its housing register;
• disqualified him from joining the housing register without reasons;
• refused to add him to his parents’ tenancy or allow him to succeed the tenancy; and
• made offensive comments to him and lacked politeness or courtesy in its correspondence.

Mr B wants the Council to place him in the correct band, add him to his parents’ tenancy and apologise.

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 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr B, the Council’s responses to his complaints and the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme. I have also considered Mr B’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Allocations Scheme

6. The Council will only allocate housing accommodation to a person who is a qualifying person and who is not disqualified. This requires the applicant to have lived in the Borough for the last three years consecutively.
7. The policy allows the Council to disqualify persons from its housing register. This includes circumstances where the applicant is seeking to obtain accommodation by making false or misleading statements.
8. The Council places people in bands on the housing register to help it determine priority for housing. Applicants may be placed in:
• Band C1, if the Council agrees an individual is in unsuitable housing due to non-urgent medical issues or disability, and whose housing conditions directly contribute to causing ill health.
• Band D2, in the case of adult children living with parents sharing the family home without any statutory overcrowding or welfare issues, other than a desire to access independent accommodation.

What happened

9. Mr B moved back in with his parents in the Council’s area in 2017. He made an application to the Council’s housing register for help with housing. The Council refused his application as he had not lived in the area for the last three years.
10. In 2020 Mr B asked to be added to his parent’s tenancy. He also made a further application to the housing register. The Council refused to add him to the tenancy. It refused the application as he had still not lived in the area for three years. It also disqualified Mr B from its housing register. He asked the Council why he had been disqualified.
11. The Council told Mr B it had compared his application with the information from his previous application. It said he was disqualified as the dates he started living in the area did not match and it believed he had acted dishonestly. Mr B told the Council he had made an error. Two days later, the Council reconsidered the matter and removed Mr B’s disqualification.
12. Mr B complained to the Council about its refusal to provide him with accommodation through its housing register, his disqualification and how the Council had communicated with him. He also complained about the Council’s refusal to add him to his parents’ tenancy or allow him to succeed to their tenancy.
13. In its responses, the Council told Mr B he did not meet the three-year qualifying criteria. It explained why he had been disqualified and that it had removed the disqualification. It told Mr B its reasons for refusing his request to be added to or succeed to his parents’ tenancy. The Council did not find fault in its communication with Mr B.
14. Mr B made a further application to the housing register. The Council accepted his application as he had now lived in the area for three years. It placed Mr B in band D2.
15. Mr B was unhappy with the housing register band he was placed in and the reasons the Council had provided. Mr B asked the Council to review its decision and provided a letter from his GP.
16. The Council reviewed Mr B’s application but did not change its decision. It told Mr B the reason it gave him previously for its decision was just an illustration of the type of circumstances in its band D2. However, it accepted this could lead to confusion and apologised to Mr B. It also said it would review the relevant information on its website. Mr B remained dissatisfied with the Council’s decision and asked for a further review.
17. The Council reviewed Mr B’s application again but did not change its decision. It told Mr B the letter from his GP did not address if his medical needs are affected by his current housing situation.

Assessment

18. We will not investigate this complaint.
19. While I understand Mr B wants to have a higher banding priority, the Council has followed its policy. It has considered his application and the medical evidence he provided. It is therefore unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
20. Mr B was disqualified from the Council’s housing register for a short period. When the Council informed Mr B, it failed to provide clear reasons why he had been disqualified. However, it then explained its reasons and shortly after removed the disqualification. Although, this may have caused some frustration for Mr B, the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
21. We have no jurisdiction to investigate the Council’s refusal to add Mr B to or allow him to succeed to his parents’ tenancy. This is because we do not have jurisdiction on matters related to a council’s housing management function. The Housing Ombudsman can consider complaints about council housing management issues. So Mr B may wish to contact the Housing Ombudsman to see if they can assist him regarding this matter.
22. Based on the information available, I have not seen enough evidence of improper correspondence by the Council to conclude Mr B has been caused a significant injustice in this respect. An investigation by the Ombudsman into this part of his complaint is therefore not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr B’s housing application. This is because any minor fault in the way it reached its decision did not cause Mr B a significant injustice. We will also not investigate the Council’s refusal to add Mr B to his parents’ tenancy as we have no jurisdiction to consider this matter.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman