Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of his housing register application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not properly assessed his housing needs when considering his housing register application. He said this has delayed him getting rehoused.

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council accepted Mr X’s housing register application in 2012. Some time later the Council wrote to Mr X at the address on his application, but he had moved so did not get the letter. As he did not reply, the Council cancelled the application. When he contacted it again, the Council told Mr X he would need to make a fresh application, following which Mr X complained the new application should be back-dated to 2012.
6. In February 2023, the Council reviewed his application. It confirmed he did not meet the criteria for an extra bedroom because he did not need overnight care every night. It explained occasional stays by a relative were not sufficient. However, it said he should not be penalised for a four-month move and agreed to backdate his application to 2012. It also increased his priority band. It told him he could complain to us if he was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.
7. Mr X made a further complaint in November 2023. He provided medical evidence, which the Council considered. It explained there was no new medical evidence that affected his priority band.
8. Mr X complained to us in April 2024 and we asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints handling process. It respond to Mr X in June 2024. It explained it had considered all the evidence provided and was satisfied Mr X had the correct priority band. It also explained why he was not entitled to an extra bedroom for his relative for occasions they stayed with him to support him.
9. In its response to us, the Council said Mr X had been given details to bid for housing in August 2022 but had not logged on to bid, despite reminders to do so. It has now placed him on automatic bids to assist him to be rehoused.

My assessment

10. The Council was not at fault for cancelling Mr X’s housing register application when he did not respond to it, nor for asking him to make a fresh application. It was not required to back-date his application in the circumstances and did so on a discretionary basis.
11. We are not an appeal body. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the Council’s decisions about how many bedrooms Mr X needs or the priority band awarded.
12. The Council considered Mr X’s request for an extra bedroom in 2023 and again in 2024. It explained why he did not meet the criteria on both occasions. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided this and its decision is in line with its published scheme.
13. The Council used its discretion to increase Mr X’s priority band in February 2023. It has confirmed it considered the medical evidence Mr X provided and explained to Mr X why this did not mean he qualified for additional priority. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.
14. We will not consider the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman