Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so there is not enough evidence of fault for us to investigate.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly refused her housing application. She says this leaves her living away from the area where she wants to be and suffering from antisocial behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X lives outside the Council’s area. She applied to the Council’s housing register. The Council rejected the application as Ms X did not meet its requirements of having lived in the Council’s area for the five years before the application and continuing to live there.
7. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision. She explained she had previously lived in the Council’s area and had left just to escape domestic abuse, not because she wanted to leave the area. Ms X told the Council she wanted to return to its area to get away from antisocial behaviour and related problems in her current area. She described family connections in the Council’s area.
8. The Council’s review decision letter referred to the main reasons Ms X had given for wanting a review, in particular that she had left Brighton and Hove due to domestic abuse. It referred to the residency requirement and said the Council did not have information from Ms X’s current local authority confirming Ms X was at risk if she remained at her current address. The letter also said, ‘Additionally, we lack confirmation regarding the safety of your move to Brighton.’ The Council confirmed its decision that Ms X did not qualify for the housing register.
9. The evidence suggests the Council reached that decision based on its policy and on the information it had about Ms X’s circumstances. It noted the history of domestic abuse. I do not fault the Council for its view about the safety of returning to its area as Ms X had not told the Council why she considered she would no longer be at risk of domestic abuse there. Overall, the Council’s decision seems properly reached based on the evidence it had then. So, as paragraph 3 explained, I cannot criticise that decision, although Ms X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
10. After the review decision, Ms X told the Council, and later told me why she believed she was no longer at risk of domestic abuse in Brighton and Hove. However, that information was not before the Council while it was considering and reviewing the housing application. So it does not affect my decision on how the Council dealt with the housing application.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly, so there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman