Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s application for housing. The Council properly reached its decision not to allow Mr X onto the housing register. There are not good enough reasons to investigate other points.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not allow him onto the housing register, will not allow him to reapply and did not communicate properly with him. He says this has caused him distress and he remains in unsuitable housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s housing allocations policy only lets people join the housing register if they have lived in the borough for the previous five years (Mr X has) and have an identified and recognised housing need. Mr X said he had such a housing need because he said his home had insanitary and unsatisfactory conditions. Mr X said this was because there was damp and mould in his home, affecting his health. However, the Council reports that when officers later discussed this with him by telephone on two separate occasions, he said each time there was no damp or mould. Mr X’s later correspondence with the Council did not dispute the Council’s account of those conversations although he continued arguing the property’s condition affects his health, especially his asthma and a cough. The Council says it has seen no evidence for this. It states medical information Mr X sent was details of his medication and a doctor’s letter listing his medical conditions but with no indication those conditions related to Mr X’s current housing or would improve with a move.
6. The Council’s decision that there is not enough evidence Mr X is living in unsatisfactory or insanitary housing was based on information from Mr X and discussion with him. The Council was entitled to give weight to Mr X saying there was no damp or mould. Nor does the medical evidence seem to have shown Mr X’s current housing causes his health problems. Mr X’s assertion that his housing damages his health is not enough, without clear evidence, to show housing need.
7. In the circumstances, I consider the Council properly reached its decision. Mr X disagrees but that does not enable me to criticise the Council’s decision, as paragraph 3 explained.
8. Mr X also asked to be on the housing register because he said his landlord intends to increase the rent again. Mr X says that will mean he can no longer afford the rent. The Council replied it cannot put Mr X on the housing register based on something that has not yet happened. It advised Mr X to come back to the Council if the rent increases to an unaffordable level or the landlord seeks to end the tenancy.
9. I have seen no evidence of Mr X telling the Council an unaffordable rent increase had actually happened rather than fearing this will happen in the future. I do not fault the Council’s response on this point. Nor was there any fault in the Council’s advice that Mr X can come back to it if circumstances change.
10. If the rent increases, the Council can consider whether Mr X is legally homeless if he cannot afford to remain in his home. If the landlord gives notice to quit, the Council can consider whether Mr X is threatened with homelessness. However, the Council cannot act on speculation that those events might happen.
11. Mr X is concerned he cannot make a new housing application. The Council’s system will not allow that as Mr X has already applied unsuccessfully. Instead, the Council says Mr X can send it any more evidence and it will consider whether to change the decision on his application. The Council accepted it had not properly explained that before. We could not achieve more on this point now the Council has explained how Mr X can proceed. I am satisfied Mr X is not ‘banned for life’ from asking the Council for housing, as he suggested.
12. Mr X also complains about the Council’s communications with him, including allegedly inadequate explanations, delays and failures to reply to requests to review its decision on the housing application. The key point here is that, once the Council did the review, I have not found any fault undermining the Council’s decision that Mr X did not qualify for the housing register. Therefore it would be disproportionate to investigate the Council’s communications about the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision on the central point of whether Mr X should be on the housing register. In that context, there are not good enough reasons to investigate other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman