Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing applications. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not handle his homelessness or social housing applications appropriately.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions have negatively impacted on his mental health.

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, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his homelessness and social housing applications. Mr X specifically said the Council did not contact medical professionals to gain further information about his health conditions.
7. Mr X approached the Council when he was at risk of eviction from his current private rented property. The Council went on to accept a prevention duty for Mr X and worked with him until he was no longer at risk of eviction, at which point it told Mr X the duty came to an end.
8. If Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision to end its prevention duty towards him, Mr X had a right to request a review of this decision, as outlined in section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. This right was presented to Mr X in the Council’s letter informing him its duty had ended. Mr X would have then had a right of appeal to the court on a point of law, if there was an error in the Council’s review decision.
9. Mr X also made an application to join the social housing register. Initially, because Mr X was at risk of eviction and therefore becoming homeless, he was given a higher banding. Once Mr X was no longer at risk of eviction, the Council gave him a lower priority banding.
10. Mr X requested a review of this decision which the Council carried out and upheld its decision that he was awarded the correct banding.
11. In its decision letter, the Council outlined its considerations of Mr X’s health conditions and how it had considered the information provided by medical professionals.
12. We are not an appeals body and we cannot overturn the Council’s decision. We look at how the Council made its decision and whether there was any flaw in that decision-making. If there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making, we cannot question it.
13. Based on the available information, the Council acted appropriately both when considering Mr X’s homelessness application and social housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman