Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a housing register and homelessness application because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X & Mr Y complained the Council decided they did not qualify to join its housing register as she had no local connection but failed to carry out a review of that decision when she requested this and also failed to respond to her complaint.
2. Ms X said Mr Y, a joint applicant, needs to move to this Council’s area because he has mental health issues, is isolated in their current property and is fearful of hate crime there. She said both need to move on medical grounds and the Council’s failure to support them has affected their mental health.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Housing register application

6. The Council decided Ms X and Mr Y did not qualify to join its housing register because they did not meet its local connection criteria. They live in Council B’s area and have done so for many years.
7. Its published scheme says applicants must have lived in the area for five of the last seven years. Its scheme says the Council can decide not to apply the local connection criteria in “exceptional circumstances”.
8. Ms X and Mr Y provided evidence in support of their original application and the review request made in mid-March 2024. This included support letters from Council B and health professionals explaining why they needed to move.
9. The Council carried out the review in early October 2024. Its review decision shows it considered whether there were exceptional circumstances, including whether the Council had accepted a homelessness duty to them (which it hadn’t), but upheld the original decision. It suggested Ms X and Mr Y could consider looking for private rented sector accommodation. A further review in November 2024 again upheld the original decision as all the details were the same as the previous request.
10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. From the records seen, I am satisfied the Council considered the reasons given for needing to move to this Council’s area and the evidence provided in support of the application. It considered its published allocations scheme and set out its reasons for deciding the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to warrant setting aside the usual local connection criteria. I note there was a delay in making the review decision, which was made five months after the review request. However, I do not consider this caused a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation. Otherwise, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify our involvement.

Homelessness application

12. Ms X and Mr Y also made several homelessness applications. In its complaint response, the Council said it had not received an application until March 2024 but apologised for not contacting Ms X about it until January 2025. It offered to pay her £100 to remedy the injustice caused by its delay. It explained it had refused a previous application in 2021 as neither Ms X nor Mr Y had a local connection to its area and said that if the current application proceeded it was likely it would make a referral back to Council B for the same reason. I understand from the records seen, that it subsequently issued a decision that Ms X and Mr Y were not homeless because there was no current risk of domestic abuse that meant it was not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their current property.
13. Again, we are not an appeal body, but I have considered the decision-making process. The records seen show the Council considered the history of domestic abuse and the medical grounds for the homelessness application. It discussed the application by telephone before issuing a formal decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.
14. The Council accepted there was a delay in contacting Ms X and Mr Y about the application and there also appears to have been a delay in making a formal decision. It has apologised and offered to pay them £100, which is sufficient to remedy the uncertainty caused by those delays. Therefore, we will not consider that part of the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X and Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman