Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly removed him from its housing register. We ended our investigation because the Council has reinstated Mr X on its housing register and further investigation could not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to remove his household from its housing register when it discovered another member of his household was the registered owner of a house.
2. He says the Council’s decision placed his family in an exceptionally difficult situation because they were in unsuitable overcrowded accommodation and in priority need of a new home.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocation: guidance and policy

8. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
9. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

10. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

11. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
12. 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.
13. The Council’s housing allocation policy (March 2022) states if an applicant owns or has an interest in a property as a free holder or leaseholder in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world then they will not qualify to join the Housing Register. (Paragraph 3.10.2)

What happened

14. Mr X and his family were on band A of the Council’s housing register. This was the highest priority band. In December 2022 the Council decided to make Mr X eligible for a direct offer of an available property because he had been on band A for six months.
15. In November 2023 the Council made a direct offer of an available house. Mr X accepted the offer.
16. The Council did a verification process before the move was finalised. As part of that process the Council found a member of the household was the registered owner of a house in a different part of the country. The Council said that person was a joint applicant when they had joined the housing register, and their ownership of the house disqualified them.
17. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. He explained that though the person had been the registered owner, they had never had a financial interest in it, and genuinely believed they had been removed as the registered owner years ago. Mr X gave the Council evidence in support of that information.
18. In April 2024 the Council completed its review and did not change its decision. Mr X appealed and asked the Council to reconsider its decision. He provided more information and evidence in support of his appeal. In November the Council refused Mr X’s appeal and upheld its decision.
19. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in December 2024.
20. In January 2025 Mr X sent the Council a ‘pre-action protocol’ letter. He said he was prepared to seek a judicial review if the Council did not reconsider its decision to remove his household from the housing register.
21. In February the Council overturned its decision following a review of all the information Mr X had provided. It reinstated Mr X on its housing register with the correct priority band A. It said its decision to refuse Mr X’s appeal in November was wrong as the other household member was not a joint applicant.

Findings

22. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.
23. When a person complains to us we ask what they think the Council should do to put things right. Mr X said he wanted the Council to acknowledge the exceptional circumstances of the case, reinstate him on the housing register and consider his household’s urgent needs. I am of the view the Council has done this by overturning its decision and reinstating Mr X on the housing register. I have therefore decided not to continue this investigation because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

24. I have ended my investigation because the Council has overturned its decision to remove Mr X from its housing register and reinstated him at the correct band. Further investigation into the Council’s decisions would not lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman