Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided she no longer qualifies to remain on the Council’s housing register. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council took too long to consider her housing register application and then after accepting her onto the register, the Council decided she no longer qualified to be on the register. Miss B also complains there was a lack of communication from the Council while she was waiting for her application to be decided. Miss B would like the Council to reinstate her housing application.

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 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss B and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Miss B had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says to qualify to join the housing register, a person must meet certain criteria.
7. These include a requirement to have been resident in the borough continuously for the last three years, and to continue to reside in the borough. The scheme includes some exceptions to these requirements.
8. Miss B applied to join the Council’s housing register in September 2023. Miss B was living in the borough at the time.
9. Miss B stayed with a relative outside the borough from January 2024 until October 2024. Miss B then returned to live at her previous address in the borough.
10. In November 2024 the Council told Miss B she had been accepted onto the housing register and could bid for properties. In early 2025 the Council asked Miss B for more information about her housing situation. The Council then suspended Miss B’s housing application before deciding she no longer qualified to be on the housing register. The Council said this was because Miss B no longer met the Council’s residency requirements, so was not a qualifying person.
11. The Council’s decision to remove Miss B from the housing register was in line with the Council’s housing allocations scheme. This is because the scheme requires a person to have lived in the borough continuously for the last three years, and importantly, to continue to reside in the borough.
12. Miss B says she had not officially changed address and this was just a temporary arrangement. But, Miss B was not living in the borough from January to October 2024. So, the Council was entitled to decide Miss B no longer met the Council’s residency requirements. This means there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s decision to remove Miss B’s housing application from the housing register.
13. I have considered whether we should start an investigation only into Miss B’s concerns about the Council’s handling of her housing application including delay, a lack of communication, and the Council initially accepting her onto the housing register. But, I find an investigation is not justified.
14. Miss B no longer met the Council’s residency requirements as early as January 2024 when she stopped living in the borough. So, even if the Council had decided Miss B’s application earlier, and in full knowledge of where Miss B was living, the Council would have made the same decision – that Miss B did not qualify to join the housing register.
15. Miss B may have been caused some distress and uncertainty by the Council’s delay deciding her application and by the Council initially accepting her onto the housing register. But, an investigation would not achieve the outcome Miss B seeks which is for her housing application to be reinstated. So, I find an investigation into these issues would not be a good use of our limited resources or achieve a meaningful outcome for Miss B.
16. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s decision to remove Miss B’s application from the housing register. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Miss B’s application is not justified and would not achieve a meaningful outcome for Miss B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman