Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y has complained the Council has wrongly rejected her application to join the housing register. Miss Y says this is despite three of her four children having autism and ranging from two years old to 17 years old, who all share a single room.
2. Miss Y says the overcrowding causes significant distress for her and her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
8. In this case, the Council has considered, rejected and reviewed Miss Y’s application to join the housing register. Miss Y says that given her family’s needs and overcrowding that this decision was incorrect.
9. 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. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
10. The Council’s housing allocations policy says that those who are overcrowded and in need of a single bedroom more, to not be considered overcrowded, will not qualify as having a housing need under its policy. Such applications will then be rejected, and applicants will not be able to join the Council’s housing register.
11. In Miss Y’s case, she has four children who are all boys, aged between 17 and two years old at the point when her case was considered. As shown in the review correspondence, the Council has considered her situation and her current accommodation and therefore found her to be overcrowded and in need of a single bedroom more.
12. The Council has also considered information provided by Miss Y in support of her application about her children’s health and welfare needs. It has considered her children’s sleeping arrangements and has carried out a medical assessment. The Council considered, and explained in its review decision to Miss Y, how the current accommodation was affecting her quality of life and if there was any demonstratable link between the health concerns she had raised and her existing home and whether moving properties would have any significant improvement in those medical concerns.
13. Having considered the evidence available to it and carried out the medical assessment, the Council found that the threshold for this had not been met as there was a low demonstrable link to her concerns for her children’s health and the property she currently lives in. Consequently, in line with the Council’s housing allocations policy, the Council told Miss Y that she would not be able to join the housing register. Miss Y then approached us.
14. As the Council has considered relevant information provided by Miss Y, carried out a medical assessment and has applied Miss Y’s circumstances to its policy, the decision-making process has been completed properly. Consequently, as the Council has followed its housing allocations policy when making its decision, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman