Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mrs Y a two-bedroom need under its Housing Allocations Policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains, on behalf of Mrs Y, that the Council has failed to arrange suitable accommodation that meets Mrs Y’s housing needs and provide an extra bedroom for her privately funded carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy (as revised August 2022 and available online).

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs Y applied to join the Council’s housing register seeking a two bedroom property as she wanted a room for her carer. However, the Council removed Mrs Y from its housing register due to the lack of evidence she required a full-time live-in carer.
8. On review, the Council upheld its original decision that the evidence available to it did not demonstrate a need for Mrs Y to receive 24-hour daily care. It explained a housing needs report said Mrs Y was receiving care from an independent homecare agency. However, the agency told the Council it was not providing Mrs Y with care. Separately, the relevant council, that offers adult social care services, had not assessed Mrs Y as needing a full-time live-in carer.
9. The Council’s decision is in line with its published Housing Allocations Policy. This states, where an extra bedroom is requested for a full-time live-in carer, the Council requires supporting documents from social services or another independent organisation that shows such a carer is essential on a 24-hour daily basis. The Council provided Mr X with clear reasons for its decision in its final complaint response. It said the private care arrangement did not meet the relevant evidence requirements. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. Mr X also complains the Council has failed to provide Mrs Y with suitable housing under homelessness legislation. But, based on the evidence I have seen, Mrs Y has not made a homelessness application to the Council. A council’s duties towards certain homelessness applicants, including the duty to make sure any accommodation offered is suitable to the needs of the applicant, are separate from its decision-making under its housing allocations scheme. If Mrs Y considers she is homeless or threatened with homelessness, it is open to her to make a separate application to the Council about this. If Mrs Y is unhappy with the outcome of this application, she may wish to consider making a further complaint to the Ombudsman, after exhausting any review rights with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mrs Y a two-bedroom need under its Housing Allocations Policy. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman