Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she did not qualify to join its housing register as she was adequately housed. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision she did not qualify to join the Council’s housing register because she was suitably housed. She said her mental health was suffering because of antisocial behaviour in the building.

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 investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X applied to join the Council’s housing register because she said her housing was adversely affecting her mental health. She provided evidence from medical professionals to confirm she had mental health diagnoses, for which she was prescribed medication. And she described the difficulties she was experiencing.
7. In May 2023, the Council decided she did not qualify to join its housing register because she was adequately housed. It said her property met her needs in terms of size and type, had been adapted to meet her needs and there was a lift in the building. It explained it did not consider her housing was having a significant impact on her medical conditions. It explained what she would need to show to qualify for rehousing based on antisocial behaviour (ASB), which included that all alleviating options had been explored. It suggested she contact her landlord to explore options to address the problems in the building.
8. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome and asked the Council to review its decision. The Council considered all the information and evidence Ms X provided, and wrote to her with the outcome of its review on 26 July 2023. It said Ms X had not shown her home itself was having a direct impact on her health. It said the landlord was now carrying out daily patrols and would address any ASB reported, and that Ms X could report any criminal activity in the building to the police.
9. It is not our role to act as an appeal body or to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision made.
10. The evidence shows the Council considered all the information and evidence Ms X provided. Its initial decision letter and review decision letter explained its reasons for reaching its decision that she was adequately housed. There is no evidence of fault in the way it made its decisions, nor was there any delay in making them. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms 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