Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision not to give Mr X’s application priority. We would be unlikely to achieve significantly more regarding the delay. The data protection concern is more properly for the Information Commissioner.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council: wrongly refused him priority for social housing due to deciding that his children do not mainly live with him and that he does not have a local connection; delayed dealing with his application; and acted improperly regarding claimed contact between its housing and children’s services departments. He says this means he does not have suitable housing, is incurring extra cost and has suffered stress.

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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied to the Council for social housing for him and his children. He states the children live mainly with him. The Council did not give his application priority on its housing register. It reviewed and confirmed that decision. The Council’s decision results from its view that Mr X’s children do not live with him most of the time and that Mr X does not have enough local connection to join its housing register.
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 Mr X disagrees with the decision.
9. The Council’s decision took account of information from Mr X, information it had about the family, and its housing allocation policy. The information from Mr X included his reasons for disagreeing with the Council’s view that the children did not mostly live with him. The Council also followed the law and its policy by reviewing its decision when Mr X disagreed. Overall, the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly. Of course, Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council’s decision. However, as I explained above, that does not mean I can criticise the Council’s decision. It is not for me to decide where the children mostly live, whether Mr X has enough local connection, or what priority Mr X’s housing application should have.
10. The Council normally only lets people join its housing register if they have a ‘local connection’ to Leeds, as set out in the Council’s lettings policy. It decided Mr X did not have such a connection. In making that decision, the Council considered information and arguments from Mr X and the Council’s policy, including its discretion to deal with exceptional circumstances. The evidence suggests the Council reached this decision properly. So, while Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council, I cannot criticise the decision.
11. The Council said its housing section communicated with its children’s services section about Mr X’s family. Mr X complained this was either untrue, or any such contact had been without parental consent, so breached data protection law. The evidence I have seen shows there was some communication between the different Council sections. So there was no fault in the Council saying that had happened. It is more appropriate for the Information Commissioner than for us to decide if the Council broke data protection rules.
12. The Council accepts there was some delay in it assessing Mr X’s housing application. Mr X complained to get the Council to complete the assessment. This caused Mr X some avoidable uncertainty and effort. However, as the Council’s eventual decision was not in Mr X’s favour and I have not criticised that decision, the Council’s apology for the delay is enough remedy here. It would be disproportionate for us to do more on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision not to give Mr X’s application priority. We would be unlikely to achieve significantly more regarding the delay. The data protection point is more appropriately for the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman