Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he did not have a local connection because that decision was in line with its allocation scheme. Since the complaint to us, the Council has exercised discretion to waive the usual criteria and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision he had no local connection when deciding his priority on its housing register. He says he needs to move to be closer to relatives for support with his mental health and the Council’s decision is preventing this from happening.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2024. The Council awarded band E because it said he was adequately housed, but invited him to complete a medical form, following which it would review his application.
6. On 7 August, the Council decided Mr X did not meet the criteria for medical priority. He asked for a review of that decision. On review, the Council identified a housing officer support letter that had not been considered when its decision was made on 7 August. Based on that evidence, it awarded band C priority, but this was reduced to band D because Mr X did not satisfy the local connection criteria set out in the allocation scheme.
7. Mr X asked for a further review, setting out the reasons why he considered the Council should waive its usual local connection criteria. The review decision, issued on 1 November, upheld the original band C decision.
8. Mr X asked for a further review, which was carried out by Council B, in line with the allocations scheme. Council B’s welfare panel considered the application and increased Mr X’s priority to band B due to his particular circumstances. However, this was reduced to band C, because the local connection criteria was not met.
9. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council whether it had considered exercising discretion to waive the local connection criteria in this case and, if so, whether it had explained its reasons for not doing so to Mr X.
10. In April 2025, the Council reconsidered the application. It agreed to grant “discretionary local connection” and explained its reasons. This means Mr X was awarded band B with effect from December 2024, which was the date Council B awarded additional priority.

My assessment

11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the decisions the Council made were correct. Unless there is fault in the 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.
12. The Council accepts it missed a support letter when making its decision on 7 August 2024, which was put right on review. Otherwise, the Council (and Council B, on its behalf) considered all the information available at the time, made its decisions in line with its published scheme and without undue delay. It issued decisions in writing, explaining its reasons and providing information about relevant review rights.
13. The only thing it had not done was consider whether to exercise discretion to waive the local connection criteria in view of the particular circumstances of the application. It was not required to agree this, only to consider whether this was appropriate. It has now considered this and agreed to award “discretionary local connection”. This means Mr X is now in band B, effective from the date he met the criteria for that band, which is appropriate. It is unlikely he has missed out on a property between December 2024 and April 2025. Therefore any injustice suffered is not sufficient to justify further investigation and, in the circumstances, further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. 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