Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify to join its social housing register. This is because the Council’s decision properly took account of its housing allocations policy and the complainant’s living circumstances and housing needs. We did identify some fault by the Council with respect to communication, but this did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss K) complains about the Council’s decision to cancel her application to join its social housing register. She says the Council initially approved her application, though changed this decision following its revised assessment she did not meet the qualification criteria. Miss K says the Council failed to consider that her husband is a key worker in the local area. She feels these missed areas do meet qualification criteria and so the Council is wrong.
2. In summary, Miss K says the Council’s rejection of her application adversely affected her mental health. Further, she explains she was pregnant and had three young children at the time the problems occurred. Miss K says her property was overcrowded which in turn impacted her family’s health and wellbeing. As a desired outcome, she wants the Council to reinstate her family to the housing register and pay a sum in compensation due to the impact caused by the fault.

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 per-son 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;
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I found Miss K applied to join the Council’s housing register in August 2023. The Council assessed this and decided she was did not qualify on account of not having lived in the area long enough. In response, Miss K appealed and the Council carried out a review. Miss K promptly returned documents requested by the Council in September 2023 to assist the review.
6. On receipt of Miss K’s tenancy agreement, the Council assumed she was a social tenant within the Council’s area due to her landlord being a housing association which it partners with. The Council explained already being a social tenant in its area would overlook local connection criteria and allow Miss K to join its housing transfer list. The Council therefore accepted Miss K’s housing application.
7. In March 2024 however, Miss K telephoned the Council about a lack of progress in finding a suitable property. It was during this call the Council realised Miss K was not a social housing tenant, but had been renting privately from the housing association. The Council therefore decided the local connection criteria applied. Given its assessment Miss K did not meet this criteria, it concluded the decision to accept the application was incorrect and so this was cancelled. Shortly after, Miss K appealed by requesting a review. It is her position that she does not need to satisfy the requirement of living in the Council’s area for six years because her husband is a key working employed there. She says the Council failed to consider this, as well as issues of her home being seriously overcrowded.
8. The Council provided a written response to Miss K’s review request. This explained that in order to join the housing register, applicants must satisfy all eligibility and qualifying criteria. These are set out in the Council’s housing allocations policy and includes a six year local connection, a person’s financial means and a housing need. Local connection can also be satisfied if an applicant has a close family member who meets the six year criteria, or if an applicant is a permanent and newly qualified key worker moving to the area. The Council assessed Miss K’s appeal but found she did not qualify for local connection.
9. I have carefully considered this point and have not identified any fault by the Council with respect to its application of policy. I found that Miss K’s family moved to the Council’s area in 2019 and as such, have not been living there for six years. Further, Miss K has not provided any information to suggest she has a family member which would satisfy this requirement. I recognise Miss K says her husband is a key worker who works in the Council’s area and I have considered her evidence regarding this. However, this sets out that Miss K’s husband’s employment began in mid-2021 and is set to end in early 2022. On that basis, it is unlikely that Miss K’s husband could be considered a ‘permanent’ and ‘newly qualified’ key worker in accordance the policy requirements.
10. The Council did consider whether it should exercise discretion with respect to the criteria, though did not identify any exceptional reason to do so. I recognise the point made by Miss K that her current property is overcrowded, but in my view, this is an issue which affects most applicants waiting for housing and is not exceptional to justify special discretion. I have not found any evidence of fault with respect to the Council’s review decision. That said, the Council’s decision to accept Miss K onto the housing register based on its reading of her landlord being a housing association was fault which went unrectified for six months.
11. I can understand this would therefore have caused Miss K unnecessary time and trouble and uncertainty over the process. Given she does not yet qualify to join the housing register however, I do not consider the inconvenience suffered amounts to serious loss, harm or distress. The Council has apologised to Miss K, rectified the error through clarification and set out the actions it took internally to ensure such issues do not repeat. In my view, these collectively form a suitable remedy to any injustice caused. I do not accept Miss K suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restrictions I outline at paragraph three (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman