Summary: A man complained about the Council’s delay in responding to his request for a review concerning his housing application and its decision that he no longer lived at his application address. But we will not investigate these matters because there are insufficient grounds to suggest the Council’s errors caused the man an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr C, complained that the Council delayed unreasonably for almost a year in responding to his request for a review of its decision that he does not qualify to join its housing register. Mr C also complained the Council wrongly concluded in its review decision that he no longer lived at the address he applied from and did not properly investigate this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr C provided with his complaint and his comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also considered the Council’s correspondence with Mr C about his complaint. In addition, I took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

4. In 2021 Mr C applied to the Council to join its housing register so that he could bid for social housing properties. But the Council decided Mr C did not qualify for the register as he did not have a housing need under its Housing Allocation Scheme.
5. Early in 2022 Mr C asked the Council to review its decision. However the Council did not reply to the review request until November 2022, despite Mr C contacting it to chase a response. In its review letter the Council apologised to Mr C for its delay. But it also said it would not deal with Mr C’s review request as its databases indicated he no longer lived at the address he had applied from and, therefore, he would need to make a fresh application.
6. Mr C complained to the Council and then to us about what had happened. He also made a new housing register application. In response to Mr C’s application the Council accepted he was living at the same address. But it also decided he did not qualify for the register because he still had no recognised housing need.
7. So it is evident the Council was at fault because of an unreasonable delay of at least eight months in responding to Mr C’s review request. It appears the Council may also have been at fault for not properly checking if Mr C was living at his application address before replying to his review request.
8. However, we cannot question councils’ decisions if there is no fault in the way they were made. In particular, we usually will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
9. The Council’s Allocation Scheme makes clear that applicants will not qualify for the register if they have ‘no housing need’ according to the need categories in the Scheme. These include categories such as being homeless, living in unsatisfactory or overcrowded housing, or having to move for health reasons or due a disability.
10. From the information provided I do not see that Mr C fits any of the need categories in the Council’s Scheme. Therefore I am not convinced we could fault the Council regarding its initial and more recent decisions that he does not qualify for its housing register.
11. In addition, even where we find fault by a council, we will not start an investigation if that fault has not caused a significant injustice. But I am not convinced we could say Mr C had suffered a significant injustice in this case.
12. I can see that the Council’s delay with the review would have left Mr C uncertain about what was happening with his application for several months, and that he was frustrated by the Council’s view he did not live at his address and at having to chase it for a response. However the fact is that Mr C does not qualify for the housing register. Therefore the outcome of his application remained the same regardless of any delay. As a result we could not say that the Council’s fault made any difference to Mr C’s chances of obtaining an offer of social housing.
13. In the circumstances, and given that the Council has apologised for its delay, I do not see we would be justified in pursuing matters any further in Mr C’s case

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s inadequate response to his request for a review of its decision that he does not qualify to join its housing register. This is because any fault by the Council did not cause Mr C an injustice to warrant our further involvement in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman