Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint that the Council removed her from its housing register after deciding she no longer qualified for overcrowding points. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s decision to remove her from the housing register and its delay reviewing this decision.

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, or

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

(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 and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme (2023).

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council’s housing allocations policy says a child over 21 cannot be included on a housing register application unless they have an exceptional need to live with the applicant. This includes a person who cannot live independently because of a disability or care need, and cannot reasonably live elsewhere, with evidence ordinarily provided by their treating specialist services.
8. The Council removed Ms Y’s daughter, Ms B, from her application, as she had turned 21. It then told Ms Y she no longer qualified to join the register based on overcrowding and it removed her from the register.
9. Ms Y requested a review. She explained her daughter had an exceptional need to live with her given her disabilities.
10. On review, the Council decided to uphold its original decision. The Council gave clear reasons with reference to the evidence provided and in line with is allocations policy. It explained Ms Y’s evidence:

• did not include any recent medical evidence confirming the conditions Ms B was diagnosed with or the severity or treatment Ms B received; and
• showed Ms B was able to attend and commute to university, meaning she could independently travel and engage in education.

11. The Council separately explained that, as Ms B was no longer considered part of her household, Ms Y no longer qualified for overcrowding points.
12. I understand Ms Y is disappointed with the Council’s decision. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to justify an investigation.
13. As the Council’s review decision did not change the outcome, I consider any delay in it completing this did not cause significant injustice. Therefore, I will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint that the Council removed her from its housing register after deciding she no longer qualified for overcrowding points. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman