London Borough of Southwark (23 006 142)
Category : Housing > Allocations
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 12 Sep 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X's housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council refused his application for social housing without properly considering his evidence. He says he cannot bid for social housing and his family remains in overcrowded circumstances some distance from the Council’s area.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
- We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X lives outside the Council’s borough. The Council would only accept Mr X’s application onto its housing register if he met the requirements in its housing allocations policy for having a local connection and also having a housing need. Its decision, confirmed by a Council review in June 2023, was that Mr X’s application did not meet either requirement.
- Mr X says he has a local connection because he works in the borough. He says he has housing need because his current home is overcrowded, with him, his wife and two adult children living in a two-bedroom property.
- On the employment point, the Council says Mr X has not provided enough evidence to show the location and nature of his employment meet its policy’s requirements. On the overcrowding point, the Council’s policy is not to include adult children on an application unless there good medical or social reasons. Therefore, the Council only included Mr X and his wife in its assessment of whether the current home is overcrowded, so it decided there was no overcrowding for the Council’s purposes.
- Mr X says the adult children are both full-time students, still dependent on him. The Council says its policy does not include adult children just because they are students. The Council is entitled to have that policy. The Council also told Mr X it has evidence linking one of the adult children to an address other than Mr X’s.
- Mr X’s complaint to us says he gave the Council evidence about his employment and that his children are full-time students, but the Council officers he gave it to did not act on it. However, the Council’s review decision letter shows the Council knew Mr X had made arguments on those points. It addressed those points, explaining it did not have all the required information about Mr X’s employment and that being a student did not entitle an adult child to inclusion on a parent’s housing application. So I am not persuaded the Council has not seen and considered relevant information from Mr X.
- Overall, the Council has given reasons for its decision and the decision appears in line with its policy and with what it knew about Mr X’s circumstances. Therefore the decision seems properly reached. It is unlikely any investigation by us will find enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached the decision. So, as paragraph 3 explained, we cannot criticise the decision, although the decision is unwelcome to Mr X.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any investigation by us is unlikely for find enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman