Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a housing scheme application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council provided misleading information and failed to recognise his key worker status on a housing scheme application.
2. He says this has led him to be facing eviction and is in priority need.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Councils key worker housing scheme eligibility criteria.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X is on the Councils housing register. He applied for a housing development scheme that prioritised key workers.
9. In its complaint response, the Council says it provided Mr X with the eligibility criteria for the scheme as soon as it was available, including details of the documents needed to show key worker status.
10. The Council did not consider Mr X’s bid because it said he had not provided the required documents specified in the advert. It also said he would not be eligible because he was not a key worker as defined by the scheme.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s bid to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman