Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he is not eligible to join its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has wrongly refused his applications to join the housing register. He says this has caused distress and affected his health and wellbeing. He wants the Council to move him to a different property.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in November 2024. The Council refused his application. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision, but it did not change its position. We will not investigate this as Mr X has since made a new application, which supersedes this decision. An investigation of this decision would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.
7. Mr X made a further application in 2025. He submitted evidence related to his medical and welfare needs to support his need to move. The Council also refused this application. Mr X asked the Council to review the decision.
8. In its review response, the Council set out how it had considered whether Mr X had a need to move for medical or welfare reasons. It acknowledged his reports of antisocial behaviour in his area. It advised him to continue to report these to his housing officer and the Police so that they could be addressed.
9. It also considered medical information he had submitted. This included a GP report, information from his employer and evidence of physiotherapy sessions. It decided there was insufficient evidence to conclude that his current housing was unsuitable and he had a medical need for re-housing. It upheld the original decision that he was not eligible to join the housing register.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
11. The Council appears to have considered all the relevant factors in reaching its decision and the decision appears in line with its policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome by investigating the earlier decision and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the recent decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman