Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council closed her housing application without giving “sufficient reasoning.” She says this means she is in temporary accommodation, which has damp and mould and from which she risks homelessness.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s housing allocations scheme only allows applicants to join the scheme if they are in housing need as defined by the scheme. The Council says when Mrs X applied in 2022, she ticked a box on her application stating she was in housing need because the Council had accepted a homelessness duty to her. The Council therefore assessed the application on that basis. It says that, while it previously owed Mrs X a homelessness duty, that duty had ended in September 2021, so the Council had no homelessness duty to her at the time of this application. Therefore the Council rejected Mrs X’s housing application.
7. The evidence suggests the Council’s decision-making took account of the information Mrs X supplied, the information it had about her homelessness application, and its allocations policy. Its decision therefore appears properly reached. So, while the decision was unwelcome to Mrs X, I cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 3 explained.
8. The Council’s first letter refusing the application and its later letter reviewing and upholding that decision both said the Council had previously closed Mrs X’s homelessness application. I consider the Council gave enough reasoning for the decision not to accept Mrs X onto the allocations scheme.
9. Mrs X says she is at risk of becoming homeless from her current accommodation. The Council’s two letters about her housing application gave contact details for the relevant Council department if Mrs X were to be threatened with homelessness in the next 56 days. I do not fault that.
10. Mrs X says her current accommodation has damp and mould. Mrs X can ask the Council to inspect the property, as the Council has certain powers about the health and safety of residential accommodation. This is separate to any homelessness or housing allocations responsibilities.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs 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