Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the housing register and about the Council not offering a house to the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council removed her son from her housing application and will not give her a house she identified as being suitable for her needs. Ms X wants an offer or increased priority, and compensation.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X came to the UK in 2011. She lives in a one bedroom flat with two young children. She has an older son who remained abroad and did not come to the UK with her.
6. Ms X is on the housing register and is currently registered for a two bedroom home. In September she included her son in the application and the Council registered her for a three bedroom home. It also awarded more priority for overcrowding. The Council then found out Ms X’s son does not live with her and has never lived in the UK. The Council removed her son from the application but, an hour later, Ms X added him again.
7. The Council suspended the application from March until May because it was waiting for Ms X to provide more information. It lifted the suspension once Ms X provided more information. The Council confirmed her son cannot be included because he does not live with her, has never lived in the UK, and no proof has been provided as to if or when he will move to the UK.
8. Ms X found a three bedroom house which she asked the Council to give her. She said the tenant neglects the property, is in rent arrears, and there is only one person living there.
9. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to remove her son from the application. She said it is reasonable to treat him as living with her and he cannot join her until there is more space. Ms X has referred to the Homelessness Code of Guidance and says she gets child benefit for him. She says she may have lost out on a housing offer during the suspension. Ms X also complained about the Council not giving her the house she had found.
10. The Council said it had considered whether to treat her son as living with her but had decided not to include him. It said that as he has remained abroad since 2011 it cannot be treated as a temporary arrangement. The Council also said Ms X had not provided any evidence of when her son would join her.
11. The Council said the house Ms X had identified has not been advertised for re-let. It explained available properties are advertised for letting and are given to the person with the highest priority who bids for the property.
12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We are not an appeal body and cannot decide whether someone should be included on the register. We can only consider if the Council followed the correct process in its decision-making and it did. The Council considered Ms X’s circumstances but decided, for the reasons explained above, it would not include her son. If he joins her then Ms X can provide evidence he is living in the UK and ask the Council to reconsider the application. The Homelessness Code of Guidance is not relevant because Ms X has not made a homelessness application and receipt of Child Benefit is subject to different rules. It is impossible to say if Ms X might have made a successful bid during the suspension but the Council has explained the suspension would not have been necessary if Ms X had not re-added her son after the removal.
13. The Council correctly explained why it cannot give Ms X the house she has found. It can only offer properties which are available to let, which this house is not, and o the person who makes a successful bid. The process does not allow the Council to award properties simply because someone finds a property they would like to rent.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman