Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not letting Miss X join its housing register. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not let her join its housing register. She says this caused distress and she and her children remain living in overcrowded accommodation.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X wants to move to Eastleigh’s district with her children. Only applicants with a ‘local connection’ can join the Council’s housing register. The relevant part of the Council’s policy on local connection says the applicant must:

‘Have close family (mother, father, brother or sister, adult children, grandparents) who have been resident for 5 continuous years and continue to be resident in the Borough of Eastleigh.’

6. Miss X does not have any of those listed relatives with a permanent address in Eastleigh. She has one relative from that list who spends time with a partner in Eastleigh but has their own address elsewhere. There was no fault in the Council deciding that was not what its policy required.
7. Miss X said her relative’s partner, who lives in Eastleigh, gives Miss X support, including with Miss X’s children, and they regard each other as family members. The partner confirmed that.
8. This is not within the definition of ‘close family’ in the Council’s policy. The Council says it nevertheless considers such situations if there is a demonstrated need to move to Eastleigh borough to continue to receive support from that person. The Council decided that was not the case here, because the person in question gives Miss X support anyway, without Miss X living in Eastleigh, and because Miss X also has support from other relatives in the district where she lives.
9. So the evidence shows the Council: considered its policy; then went beyond its policy in considering someone not on the list of ‘close family;’ took account of the evidence supplied; and gave reasons for deciding not to let Miss X onto the housing register. Therefore the Council properly reached that decision. As paragraph 2 explained, this means we cannot criticise that decision, although Miss X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
10. Miss X also says the Council’s handling of the matter raised her expectations that she could join the housing register. I do not consider this point is significant enough in itself to investigate when we are not investigating the main part of the complaint about the housing register decision.
11. I appreciate Miss X’s situation is difficult, but the evidence does not suggest that is due to any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman