Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is not eligible to join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision that she is not eligible to join the housing register.

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 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))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X wishes to move back to the Council’s area to be near to her immediate family for support. Ms X lives in a neighbouring area, where public transport to the Council’s area is under an hour or 30 mins by car.
7. The Council’s policy notes that to qualify for the housing register, an applicant must meet the following criteria:
• They have been living within the Council’s boundary continuously for the last two years immediately prior to the date of registration, or
• They have close family currently living in the Council’s boundary continuously for the last two years immediately prior to the date of the applicant’s registration, and they need to live near that person to provide or receive care. The applicant must be able to show they have a relationship with that person and they need to live near that family member for care.
8. In its complaint response, the Council explained it accepts Ms X receives general and emotional support from her family, who live in the Council’s area. However, the Council said Ms X wishes to return to the area to access support, rather than to receive defined care. Further, the Council said there was no evidence the distance from her family prevented familial support.
9. The Council’s policy also allows for the qualification criteria to be waived in exceptional circumstances. The Council noted there were no exceptional circumstances in Ms X’s case to justify waiving the criteria. The Council therefore decided Ms X was not eligible to join its housing register.
10. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the way the Council made its decision. The key point in the Council’s policy is that the applicant has close family living in the Council’s area and they need to live near that person to provide or receive care.
11. The Council has recognised Ms X receives support from her family. However, as Ms X has not provided evidence that she needs to provide or receive care from her family, rather than generalise support, the Council has concluded Ms X does not meet the required criteria to join its housing register. As the Council’s decision is in line with its policy, it is entitled to make its decision.
12. It is open to Ms X to provide the Council with evidence to show she needs to be near her immediate family to either provide or receive care.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman