Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to allow her to join its housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to allow her to join its 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 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. Mrs X lives in a two-bedroom property with her partner and two children. One of her children is over the age of 18.
7. Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing register on the basis her household was overcrowded.
8. In October 2023, the Council found Mrs X was ineligible to join its housing register as she did not have any housing need. The Council said Mrs X’s household was not overcrowded as it could not include her adult child as part of her household.
9. The Council’s policy details that any children over the age of 18 are not included in the household unless:
• The applicant has continuing caring responsibilities for them due to medical or disability needs.
• The child over 18 is registered as the applicant’s full time carer.
• The child is studying at university and living in halls of residence during term time or serving in the Armed Forces and living in barracks.
10. The policy also does give the Council discretion to decide to allow the child over 18 to remain part of the household.
11. Mrs X said her child should be allowed to remain as part of her household as he was an apprentice and on limited income.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision. This is because the Council has made its decision in line with its allocations policy and there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.
13. The Council’s policy clearly details who can be included as part of the applicant’s household. In this case, only in limited circumstances will a child over 18 be included. Mrs X’s child does not meet any of the criteria to be included as part of the household.
14. The Council has also appropriately considered whether to exercise its discretion to disregard its policy. In this case, the Council declined to exercise discretion and provided a detailed rationale for why it considered Mrs X’s child had sufficient income to rent a room in a shared house.
15. Further, I appreciate Mrs X considers the Council’s policy is not in line with the law. However, the Council is entitled to decide its own policy and criteria for who it considers to be a part of an applicant’s household.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman