Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s application for social housing. The Council properly reached its review decision that Miss X does not qualify for social housing in its area. In that context, it would be disproportionate to investigate the other points.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her application for social housing, in particular its eventual decision that she did not qualify for social housing. She states this causes her financial difficulty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X lives outside the Council’s area. She wants to move to the Council’s area to be closer to work and family. The Council gave Miss X’s housing application Band C priority on the housing register. Miss X sought a review. The Council’s review decided Miss X should not have had Band C priority as she did not even qualify for the housing register under the Council’s policy. The Council removed Miss X’s application.
7. As paragraph 2 explained, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether someone qualifies for the housing register or how much priority they should have on the register. I have considered the Council’s review decision, which was its final word on the matter.
8. The evidence suggests the review considered all the information the Council had about Miss X’s circumstances, including her reasons for wanting to move and difficulties at her current address. During the review, the Council got extra information from Miss X and her doctors. The Council got advice from its medical adviser about medical matters. The Council also took account of what its housing allocations policy said about relevant points, including about who qualifies for social housing in the Council’s area. The Council gave reasons for deciding Miss X did not qualify. Those reasons related to the Council's policy and to its understanding of Miss X's circumstances.
9. Overall, the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly. Therefore, as paragraph 2 explained, we cannot criticise the decision, albeit Miss X and others can disagree with the decision.
10. Being given Band C then being told she did not qualify for the housing register at all disappointed Miss X’s expectations. However, as any earlier error was in Miss x’s favour, and as I do not criticise the eventual decision to remove Miss X from the register, I do not consider this point significant enough to warrant investigation.
11. Miss X suggests the Council could have contacted her sooner after she moved to her current address and that it was not clear enough at every stage why the Council was contacting her. Those points are peripheral to the central question of whether Miss X should be on the housing register. As I am not investigating that central point, it would be disproportionate to investigate these other matters.
12. Miss X wants the Council to help her move into, or nearer to, its area. As well as wanting to live closer to work and family, Miss X states she wants to move away from antisocial behaviour near her current home. The Council’s role was limited to considering whether Miss X qualified for social housing in its area. As explained above, the Council properly reached its eventual decision on that point. The Council had no wider duty to help Miss X to move either into or nearer to its area.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman