Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing application. There was no fault that would have caused Miss X a significant injustice in the Council removing Miss X from the housing register. The Council properly reached its later decision not to reinstate the application.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council removed her housing register application and refused to reinstate it. She fears not having secure housing in future.

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), as amended, section 34(B))
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 and the Council. I viewed the Council’s housing allocations policy online.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council states Miss X was on its housing register under the ‘community contribution’ part of its previous housing allocations policy, which allowed applicants onto the register if they were working, training or volunteering, even if they had no other housing need. The Council’s policy then changed. It no longer has a ‘community contribution’ element. Therefore, when the Council reviewed Miss X’s application, it decided her circumstances did not meet the current policy’s criteria, so removed her application.
7. The Council is entitled to change its policy. Removing Miss X’s application was in line with the Council’s current policy. The details of the Council’s reasoning were not necessarily clear to Miss X at the time. However, the key point here is that removing the application was in line with the Council’s policy and its understanding of Miss X’s circumstances. Therefore, any investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault on the substantive point of removing Miss X from housing register. Any injustice from Miss X not understanding the Council’s reasoning would not be significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing that point.
8. Miss X sought a review of the decision, arguing she should rejoin the housing register because her landlord had recently said he intended to end her tenancy and sell the property. The landlord had not given written notice.
9. The Council has some duties to people legally ‘threatened with homelessness,’ which can include allowing them to join the housing register. ‘Threatened with homelessness’ means likely to become homeless within 56 days. As Miss X had not even received written notice to quit, there was no fault in the Council not treating her as threatened with homelessness then. Miss X reporting what the landlord had said did not mean she was legally threatened with homelessness; nor did it meet any other criteria for inclusion on the housing register. The Council told Miss X to contact it if her landlord serves written notice. I see no fault by the Council here.
10. Miss X’s review request mentioned her mental health. The Council said it had no evidence Miss X met the threshold for medical priority on the housing register. That decision seems properly reached on the information the Council had at the time. So, as paragraph 3 explained, I cannot criticise the decision. Miss X can give the Council any evidence she thinks might affect the Council’s decision, but that would be a new matter, separate from the current complaint.
11. Miss X said her property has a mice infestation. She can ask the Council to consider whether any of its environmental protection or housing powers mean the Council should tell the landlord to take any action. This point does not in itself mean the Council was at fault for not reinstating Miss X’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman