Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close the complainant’s housing application. This is because the Council has provided a fair remedy for a fault that occurred and because there is insufficient evidence of fault for the remaining parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to close her housing application. She wants to either remain on her mother’s application and for the family to be re-housed or for the Council to re-open her application and provide backdating.

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, or
• the Council has provided a fair remedy.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X lives with her mother and is part of her mother’s housing application. Her mother’s application is based on the family being overcrowded.
5. In August 2021 Ms X made her own housing application; her mother did not report this to the Council as a change of circumstance with her own application because she did not realise she needed to. Ms X submitted supporting evidence in October. The Council closed the application in March because Ms X was included in her mother’s application. The Council explained Ms X’s mother would need to remove Ms X from her application so Ms X could have her own application. The Council said her mother would not be overcrowded if Ms X was removed.
6. Ms X complained about the decision and about the delay in the Council making the decision. She said she did not want to come off her mother’s application because that would affect her mother. In response the Council confirmed the decision to close Ms X’s application is correct but it said it had taken too long to make the decision. The Council invited Ms X to make a new application once her mother had removed her from her application. The Council said it would then backdate Ms X’s new application by four months.
7. In response to a draft of this decision Ms X said she had submitted a new application and her mother was in the process of removing her from her application.
8. The Council delayed assessing Ms X’s application. Given that she submitted the supporting evidence in October it is reasonable to expect the Council would have made a decision by December. But it did not send the decision until March and the earliest Ms X could have reapplied is April. The Council has agreed to backdate a new application by four months to reflect the delay between December and April. This is a fair and proportionate remedy and does not require additional input from us.
9. In relation to the other issues there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council explained why it closed Ms X’s application and what she, and her mother, need to do if she wants to reapply.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a fair remedy and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman