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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to remove her application from the housing register when it discovered that the information on her application made her ineligible under its allocations policy. She disagrees with the policy and the subsequent review decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says that the Council shortlisted her for an offer of a tenancy but when it came to the required verification checks of her application the Council noted that she was a joint tenant with her mother. This affected the affordability assessment of her current housing as her rental costs were only half of what the rental for the property required.
6. The Council’s housing allocations policy requires that an applicant’s eligibility for social housing is verified before an offer can be made. In this case the Council says that the original assessment had overlooked the joint tenancy and that her affordability was therefore overestimated. The new assessment meant that she could not be shortlisted and in fact was no longer eligible for the housing register.
7. Miss X challenged the Council’s decision by asking for a review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. The Council carried out the review but it did not change the decision that she was no longer eligible due to her being a joint tenant.
8. 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.
9. In this case the Council’s due diligence checks determined the Miss X was not eligible for an offer or to be on the housing register and her application was removed. Whilst her frustration is understandable the Council would have been at fault if had allocated a property to an applicant who had not been correctly assessed for the shortlisting. This would have caused injustice to other applicants who had verified housing needs and were also eligible for the vacancy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman