Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s housing register application. The Council offered an appropriate and proportionate remedy for failing to tell Mr X that he could seek a review of its decision on his application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council made its decision to refuse Mr X’s housing register application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council unfairly refused his application for the housing register as it rigidly applied its residency rule. Mr X says that as a result he and his child are living in overcrowded and unsafe accommodation which is affecting his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X applied for the Council’s housing register as he considered his accommodation is overcrowded which is affecting his mental health.
8. The Council’s housing allocation scheme provides that an applicant must have lived continuously in its area for seven years to qualify. The Council refused Mr X's application as he had not continuously lived in the Council’s area for seven years.
9. Mr X made a complaint to the Council as he considered it was rigidly applying its residency rule. He considered the Council ignored his housing situation and ties to the local area. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. But it acknowledged it failed to tell Mr X that he could seek a review of its decision that he did not qualify. It invited Mr X to request a review.
10. Mr X requested a review. The Council considered Mr X’s request but it did not change its decision that he did not qualify for the housing register.
11. We will not investigate the Council’s failure to notify Mr X of his right to seek a review of its decision that he did not qualify for the housing register. The Council appropriately and proportionately remedied Mr X’s lost opportunity by inviting him to seek a review.
12. We are not an appeal body, so we do not come to our own view on whether a person qualifies for a council’s housing register. Our role is to consider if the Council followed the proper processes when making its decision.
13. The Council’s review decision shows it considered Mr X’s reasons for requesting the review and his housing circumstances. It explained it did not consider Mr X had special reasons. It therefore considered its discretion on whether it should apply the residency rule to Mr X. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.
14. Mr X considers the Council’s residency rule indirectly discriminates against him. He also considers it is out of step with other councils who require shorter residency in their area. We will not investigate this complaint. The law allows each council to decide who is or is not a qualifying person. The Council’s allocations scheme provides that it will exempt certain applicants from the residency rule in line with the law. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s allocations scheme. A court is likely to be better placed to decide if the allocations scheme indirectly discriminates against Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by failing to tell Mr X of his right of review. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council’s decision that Mr X did not qualify for the housing register.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman