Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council had refused her housing application based on incorrect information.
2. She wants the Council to review its decisions and place her back on the housing register.

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.

(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 Miss X and the Council.
6. I considered the Councils Housing Allocation Policy.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In September 2024 the Council rejected Miss X’s housing application. It told her that she had not met its 5-year residency eligibility requirement.
9. Miss X asked for a review of the decision which the Council carried out under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996. The review was completed in October 2024, and the Council upheld its decision that she was not eligible for the list due to not living in the borough for 5 continuous years prior to application. It said that Miss X had provided information in a homelessness application in 2023 that showed her living outside of the borough. It said that Miss X had no live homeless application and it did not owe her main housing duty.
10. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
12. In this case the Council conducted a review. Its review decision shows it considered all the information it had, including the grounds for the review request, and that it considered its published scheme, including the exceptions to the residency requirements set out in that scheme. Its decision explained its reasons for deciding the residency requirements were not met and why there were insufficient grounds to make an exception to them. and the outcome on the case was unchanged. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman