Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she no longer qualifies for its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council removed her from its housing register after she told it her rent had increased by £100 per month. She said the decision was unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X told the Council her rent had increased by £100 per month, following which it decided she no longer qualified for its housing register. This was because she was originally on the housing register because she was spending one third of her income on rent and that her home fell within the lowest quarter of rents in the area, based on data from the Office for National Statistics. When her rent increased, this meant she was no longer in the lowest quarter of rents for the property size.
6. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome and asked for a review, which upheld the original decision for the same reasons. She asked for a further appeal and later made a formal complaint, which was addressed at both stages of the Council’s complaints process. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s frustration that a change outside her control meant she no longer qualified, but explained the calculations were not decided locally. It said that when the national data was updated, she could contact it to see if that meant she qualified again. Finally, it signposted her to sources of help with her rent and finances and also explained she could make a homelessness application if her rent was not affordable for her.

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s 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.
8. The Council considered the information Ms X provided about her circumstances and local rents, its own allocation scheme and relevant national data, when making its decision. There was no undue delay in making its decisions and it explained its reasons at each stage. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating further.
9. Ms X says the allocations scheme is unfair and should be changed. The law says councils can devise their own schemes to meet local needs but must give “reasonable preference” to certain groups of people, which this Council’s scheme does. It would be for the courts to decide whether they are in line with relevant law and guidance. In the circumstances, it is unlikely we could recommend the Council makes changes to its scheme. Therefore, we will not investigate further because this would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman