Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s housing register decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal of his housing register application. He said the Council unlawfully erased evidence he provided contrary to data protection law. This meant that it did not consider evidence he was feeling harassment and whether that meant it should not apply its usual local connection criteria when deciding to refuse his application. Mr X also complained the Council did not change its view on review and refused to consider his complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions were in breach of his human rights and the Council had discriminated against him. As a result of its refusal, he says his family remain in unsuitable accommodation in another council area, at risk of being evicted, and his son has a commute to school that takes one and a half hours by public transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about data protection and freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about data protection or freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Mr X is currently living in temporary accommodation provided under a homelessness duty by another council, which I will refer to as Council B. He said this accommodation was affected by damp and disrepair, which he had not been addressed. Subsequently, the landlord served a section 21 notice, which is the first stage of the court process for evicting a tenant. Mr X said the court action for eviction is currently stayed (paused).
8. In May 2024, Mr X applied to join this Council’s housing register. He said he had an urgent need to move on welfare and medical grounds because:
• he was facing unlawful harassment due to an illegal eviction;
• he had reported harassment by a neighbour in 2021 but the police had taken no further action;
• he had reported harassment by another neighbour in May 2024;
• his wife had medical conditions;
• his current property was affected by damp and disrepair; and
• his son had a place at a school in this Council’s area from September 2024.
9. Also in May, the Council wrote to him with its decision that he did not qualify to join its housing register because he had not lived in its area for three years. It explained he could ask for a review of its decision if he disagreed with it.
10. Mr X asked for a review. He said he should not need to demonstrate a local connection because he needed to move to the Council’s area to give or receive care and because he was at risk of violence or harassment.
11. Since he had not received a review decision, Mr X made a formal complaint on 5 June 2024. He made a further complaint on 20 June 2024, restating his earlier arguments and saying lack of a review decision amounted to a breach of his human rights.
12. The Council responded on 10 July 2024. It said:
• the evidence Mr X had provided had all been considered when it made its initial decision, and it was satisfied Mr X had not met its local connection criteria;
• his son starting school in its area did not amount to a local connection, nor did it demonstrate a need to move to the area to give or receive care;
• Mr X would need to refer his concerns about his current housing to Council B and that Council B would need to consider whether his wife’s medical conditions meant their current housing was unsuitable; and
• Mr X had not completed a homelessness application to this Council, so it had not assessed his current housing circumstances and needs. However, it was aware he had already made applications to Council B and Council C so if he did make an application it would need to make enquiries of those councils.
13. Mr X asked for a review on the grounds that his evidence of unlawful harassment had been erased contrary to data protection law, which meant the Council had not properly considered whether to apply an exception to the usual local connection criteria. He also said the Council’s refusal amount to discrimination on grounds of disability contrary to the Equality Act and a breach of his human rights.
14. The Council replied that he had provided no new information that would change its original response. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process, but the Council declined to do so. It said Mr X should refer his concerns to Council B, which owed him a homelessness duty and a duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation.

Legal and general background

15. 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 made.
16. Where councils are making decisions about housing register applications, they must follow their published scheme.
17. This Council’s allocations scheme says only those with a local connection to its area and have a housing need can join its housing register. An applicant can demonstrate a local connection if they have, for example:
• lived in the area for either six months during the last year or for three years out of the last five years;
• permanent employment in its area or need to move there to take up an offer of permanent employment;
• evidenced a special reason for needing to live in the area, such as needing to give or receive significant care or support that results in a saving to the public purse.
18. The allocations scheme allows the Council not to apply the local connection criteria in exceptional circumstances. Examples given include those owed a homelessness duty or who would be owed a homelessness duty if assessed as a result of being a victim of violence, harassment, intimidation or where threats of violence are likely to be carried out. This includes domestic violence, witnesses to serious crime who are at risk of violence or victims of crime, including hate crime.

My assessment

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has erased evidence contrary to data protection law. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Officer is better placed to consider such complaints.
20. The Council explained its reasons for deciding Mr X does not meet its local connection, including that attending a school in its area does not amount to a local connection and that there is no evidence to show Mr X needs to move to its area to give or receive significant care that would benefit the public purse.
21. The Council has also considered the evidence of harassment. It suggested he address those concerns to Council B because Council B had accepted a homelessness duty and had provided the temporary accommodation where Mr X currently lives. The Protection of Eviction Act 1977, which Mr X referred to, protects tenants from being evicted without a court order. The landlord has not sought to evict him without going through the court process and, if Mr X considers the eviction is unlawful, he can raise his concerns as part of that process. It does not amount to harassment as defined by the allocations scheme, since neither Mr X or any family member are subject to threats of violence, harassment or intimidation that mean they cannot live in Council B’s area and need to move to this Council’s area.
22. We are not able to say whether the Council was in breach of the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act as that would be a matter for the courts to decide.
23. Based on the above, I am satisfied the Council has considered all the evidence Mr X provided, has explained the reasons for its decision and its decision is in line with its published scheme. Therefore, we will not investigate further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify our involvement.
24. Mr X also complained about the Council’s refusal to consider his complaint at stage 2. It was not fault for the Council to decline to do so, given Mr X had not raised any new issues or provided any evidence it had not already considered. In any case, we would not investigate complaints handling failings unless we are also investigating the underlying matter complained about. Therefore, we will not consider this aspect further.

Back to top

Final decision

25. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s housing register decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman