Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the housing register because the complainant could have used his review rights. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council removed him from the housing register.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes a letter inviting Mr X to ask for a review. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X joined the housing register in September 2019. He made a homelessness application in February 2021 and provided an address in the north of England. In May the Council decided he was not homeless. Mr X asked for review. By August 2021 Mr X had provided enough information for the Council to change the decision. The Council suspended Mr X’s housing register application during the review because it appeared Mr X might be living elsewhere. It lifted the suspension in August after he had supplied further information.
5. The Council closed the housing register application in June because it decided there was evidence showing Mr X had not been living in the borough for two years. The evidence included information from the homelessness application and about his employment. Mr X challenged the decision and the Council asked for more information. Mr X supplied a payslip and the Council did a review in June 2022 but did not change its decision. The Council said Mr X had 21 days to ask for a further review. Mr X tried to challenge the decision in May 2023. The Council did not do another review because the request was late. Mr X says he could not request a further review until 2023 because he did not receive new information until then.
6. Mr X submitted a fresh housing application which the Council is considering. Mr X says the application is in his son’s name; the Council says it is a joint application.
7. Mr X says the Council should extend the two year residency rule because the Council did not let as many properties during Covid and because his application was suspended during the homelessness review.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have exhausted the review process in 2022 if he disagreed with the decision that he did not meet the residency rules. If he had requested a second review within 21 days the Council would have considered his request and any new information he submitted. Mr X did not do this and his review rights lapsed. It is not my role to carry out a late review or decide whether Mr X should have remained on the housing register. Mr X says he could not ask for a further review until 2023 because it was only then that he received information about the number of properties let during Covid. This information, however, is not relevant to his submission that he continued to live in the area. The Council is assessing a new application. If the Council refuses the application there will be review rights Mr X and/or his son can use.
9. I also will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. Mr X has argued the Council should extend the two year rule due to Covid. But, the Council continued to let properties during the pandemic, this issue has no bearing on whether he remained living in the area, and there is no Council policy to extend the two year period.
10. Mr X also says the Council should extend the two year period because he could not bid for a few months in 2021. The Council suspended the application because it had questions about where Mr X was living. It asked Mr X to supply some information but Mr X did not supply any information which would allow the Council to lift the suspension until the homelessness review was completed.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because Mr X could have used his review rights and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman