Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application. The Council has provided an appropriate remedy through its complaints process and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council initially exercised discretion to accept his housing register application despite his housing-related debt but later refused him a property he bid for on the basis of that debt. He says he made an offer to address his rent arrears, which was refused and this means his arrears are higher than they would have been if his offer had been accepted. Mr X also says the Council’s actions affected his physical and mental health.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Mr X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council accepted Mr X’s housing register application in August 2024. It awarded band 1 priority on the basis he was under-occupying social housing and due to his medical needs. It exercised discretion to accept his application despite him having housing-related debt. Its decision letter acknowledged he could not cover the shortfall between his housing benefit and the amount of the rent and therefore his rennet arrears, then almost £644, would increase.
6. Mr X offered to pay £1.34 per week towards his rent arrears, which was not accepted because it was below the £5 per week minimum contribution the courts had determined for people on benefits. When the Council later completed verification checks when Mr X was shortlisted for a property, it found he had not been keeping to a repayment plan, so was not eligible for an allocation of social housing in line with the Council’s published scheme. The lack of a repayment plan also led to the Council issuing a notice of its intention to repossess Mr X’s home as his rent arrears were increasing.
7. In November 2024, the Council updated its internal guidance to say applicants with rent arrears of more than £500 could not remain on the housing register. In the same month, it issued a decision that Mr X no longer qualified. Mr X asked for a review of that decision and also made a formal complaint.
8. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had not told Mr X in August 2024, that he needed to enter into a repayment plan to reduce his arrears to below £500 and that it had not providing a joined-up approach to support Mr X to find housing of the right size to meet his needs. It agreed to:
• waive £700 of his rent arrears;
• accept his housing register application in band 1, back-dated to the date of his original application;
• allocate a dedicated housing officer to support Mr X; and
• offer an incentive payment of £500 when he accepted a smaller property, that could be used towards the cost of moving.
9. The Council agreed Mr X should pay £85 every four weeks and said he would need to make the first payment before he could start bidding again. It explained that, without a repayment plan in place, it was unlikely he would secure a new social tenancy.

My assessment

10. The Council accepted it did not give Mr X appropriate information and support from August 2024 to help him resolve his housing situation. I cannot say, even on balance, that Mr X would have secured the property he was shortlisted for, “but for” that fault. That said, Mr X is left with uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different if the Council had given him clear information and support, which is an injustice to him. I am satisfied the action the Council offered to take in its stage 2 response was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. We will not investigate further because this would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman