Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision he does not qualify to join its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision he did not qualify to join its housing register, and therefore cannot bid on social housing in its area.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council decided he did not qualify because of his behaviour at a previous address, which had led to legal action being taken against him, and because of housing related arrears. Mr X asked for a review of the decision, but the original decision was upheld.
6. A housing charity assisted Mr X to request a stage 2 review of the decision. It asked the Council to specifically consider a recent mental health diagnosis and the impact of that on his previous behaviour, and also that Mr X was seeking debt advice with a view to agreeing a rent repayment agreement. The stage 2 review was considered by the Council’s panel in May 2024 and was attended by Ms Y, a representative for Mr X. The Council agreed to delay its decision to allow time for Ms Y to provide further information about his mental health. It reminded the Ms Y about this in June and made its final decision in July 2024. It upheld the original decision for the reasons stated. It recorded Mr X had not provided any evidence to show the impact of his mental health on his behaviour as a tenant previously, nor that he had agreed a repayment plan for the rent arrears.

My assessment

7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and its allocations scheme when making its decision. It set out the reasons for its decision at each stage of the process and allowed extra time for Mr X to provide additional evidence at stage 2, but Mr X did not do so. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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