Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a housing application because it was ineligible under its allocations policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council rejecting her application to the housing register. She says she took her existing tenancy without any knowledge that there were problems with noise nuisance due to poor sound insulation. She wants the Council to allow her to re-apply to the 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council housing register because she says her current home is unsuitable due to excessive noise due to poor sound insulation. She also says it is too far from her social network established before she accepted the tenancy.
6. Miss X’s application was rejected by the Council because she did not qualify for acceptance on the housing register due to her being adequately housed for her needs in her current home. She is a tenant of a housing association on an assured tenancy and her two-bedroom flat meets her needs in terms of space and suitability. The Council advised her to contact her housing landlord about the noise issues and any disrepair which she has experienced.
7. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to reject her application under s.166A of the housing Act 1996. The Council carried out a review but its decision was unchanged.
8. 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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that the application was not properly considered.
9. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse a housing application because it was ineligible under its allocations policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman