Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about officers not informing Ms X that she would not qualify for the housing register if she accepted a private rented property. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to tell her that she would not qualify for the housing register if she accepted the tenancy of a private rented property outside of the borough. Ms X said, that, as a result, she lost the opportunity to join the housing register as she no longer had local connection and this has caused significant distress to her.

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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal (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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X applied for the Council’s housing register. Shortly before applying Ms X sent an email to an officer who was dealing with her homelessness application. In response to the email, the officer advised that Ms X would be eligible to apply for the housing register if she has lived in the Council’s area for five years.
6. Ms X applied for the housing register. She also accepted the tenancy of a private rented property outside of the Council’s area. Ms X then asked the Council if accepting the tenancy would affect her housing register application. The Council advised that Ms X would no longer qualify for the housing register.
7. Ms X complained to the Council that officers had failed to tell her she would not qualify for the housing register if she accepted a tenancy and moved out of the Council’s area. Ms X said she would not have accepted the tenancy if she’d known the effect on her housing register application.
8. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. It said there was no evidence to show officers misled Ms X.
9. The Council then wrote to Ms X to notify her that she did not qualify for the housing register. The Council explained Ms X had the right to seek a review of the decision. I understand Ms X did not seek a review.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The emails provided by Ms X and the Council show officers advised Ms X of the local connection criterion before she accepted the private rented tenancy. So, Ms X could have been aware that she would not qualify for the housing register if she accepted a tenancy outside of the Council’s area. There is no evidence to show officers told Ms X that the private rented tenancy was temporary accommodation provided under the Council’s homelessness duties or that it was not permanent accommodation. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation of Ms X’s complaint.
11. It was also open to Ms X to have requested a review of the Council’s decision that she did not qualify for the housing register. We consider it would have been reasonable for Ms X to have requested a review of the Council’s decision as the Council notified her of her right to seek a review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman