Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council had not carried out a promised review of its decision about a woman’s housing register application. This is because the Council has now completed the review and its delay in doing so has not caused the woman an injustice to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss C, complained that the Council had not responded to the request she made in September 2022 for a review of its decision that she does not qualify for its housing register because she has not lived in the area for long enough.

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 provided by Miss C and the Council. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Miss C complained to us last year about the Council’s refusal of her application to join its housing register and its poor communications with her regarding this matter. But we decided there was insufficient sign of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify starting an investigation in Miss C’s case. Nevertheless, the Council agreed to carry out a late review of its decision as a gesture of goodwill in view of the Miss C’s confusion at the time about how to seek a review.
5. Miss C confirmed her late review request on 24 September 2022. The Council acknowledged Miss C’s request on 12 October saying that it would carry out the review by 5 December and would tell her the result a few days later.
6. The Council finally sent its review response on 27 January 2023. This upheld its original decision that Miss C does not meet the local connection criterion in its Allocation Policy for inclusion on the housing register and none of the exceptions to this rule applied in her case.
7. We consider whether there is fault in the way a council makes its decisions. But we cannot question the outcome if there is no fault in the decision making. As regards housing register applications, we are very unlikely to find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
8. I see no sign of fault in the Council’s decision making in respect of its review response in Miss C’s case. In particular I consider the response indicates the reviewer took relevant information into account before reaching a decision, including the history of the case, the points Miss C raised in her review request and appropriate parts of the Council’s Allocation Policy. I also consider the response is clear and comes to a reasoned conclusion.
9. There was delay by the Council in providing its review decision. Government guidance suggests eight weeks is a reasonable timescale in which to decide a review. The Council set its own target of deciding Miss C’s case by 5 December, but it exceeded this by around seven weeks.
10. I can see this delay would have caused Miss C some unnecessary uncertainty and inconvenience. But I am not convinced her injustice in this respect is enough to warrant us starting an investigation or pursuing a further remedy in her case. In particular, I see no reason to suggest the outcome of the review would have been any different if the Council had reached a decision without delay. In the circumstances I consider the Council’s apology for what went wrong is a sufficient remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out a late review of her housing register application. This is because the Council subsequently issued a review decision, and the injustice caused to Miss C by its delay in doing so was not enough to justify our further involvement in her case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman