Summary: Mr X complains the Council excluded him from its housing register because he was of no fixed abode. If we were to investigate it is likely we would find fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s application. Therefore we have invited the Council to remedy the injustice to Mr X and it has agreed to take the action we recommended. Further consideration of the complaint would not be proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to allow him to join its housing register because he is of no fixed abode. Mr X says this has caused him distress and frustration.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council would not allow Mr X to join its housing register. It said this was because he was staying between different addresses and so it could not assess his housing circumstances. Mr X complained to the Council and it said he should ask for a review of its decision.
6. Housing applicants, particularly those that are potentially vulnerable, should not be expected to navigate the Council’s internal processes without assistance. The Council should have identified that Mr X was requesting a review of its decision to exclude him from its housing register. The Council should have then treated
   Mr X’s complaint as a review request. Failure to do so was fault.
7. The Council says it has excluded Mr X because he is of no fixed abode and so it cannot assess his current housing circumstances. Mr X is homeless and the Council has previously acknowledged this. There is nothing within the Council’s housing allocations policy which allows it to exclude people from the register because they do not have a permanent address. Applying such restrictions would also go against the policy which awards priority to people who are homeless. Therefore, there is fault in the way the Council reached its decision to exclude
   Mr X from its housing register.
8. The Council has agreed to take action we have recommended to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

9. The Council has agreed to take the following action following our recommendations:
• Reassess Mr X’s housing application as soon as possible.
• Apologise to Mr X for failure to properly deal with his application and review request.
• Pay Mr X £150 for the uncertainty and unnecessary time and trouble he has been caused.
10. The Council should take this action within 4 weeks of this decision.
11. The Council has also agreed to take the following action to improve its services:
• Review decisions to exclude people from its register for the past three months to see if anyone else has been excluded for not having a fixed address.
• Advise staff dealing with complaints that they should pass complaints which can be dealt with as review requests (e.g. homelessness or housing allocations) to the appropriate team for action.
12. The Council should take this action within three months of this decision and report back to the Ombudsman on what action it has taken.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice it caused him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman