Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the closure of a housing application because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council closed his housing application, and confirmed that decision on review, because it had not received extra information it had asked for, despite Mr X and his support worker not receiving the request for more information. Mr X says this means he will have to wait longer to move out of supported accommodation and he has suffered stress.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I spoke to Mr X and his support worker and considered information from them and the Council. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X and his wife had applied to the Council for social housing. They contacted the Council saying they were ready to move on from their supported accommodation. The Council emailed a form for their support worker to complete, asking the support worker to return the completed form within ten days. The Council showed me a copy of this email, which was addressed to the support worker’s correct email address. The Council did not receive the completed form, so wrote to Mr X saying it had closed his housing application for that reason. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. He said his support worker had not received any information request from the Council. Mr X said if the Council sent the form again, it would be completed.
6. The Council’s review involved checking that it had emailed the support worker at the email address it had for them, before it had closed the application. The Council satisfied itself it had done that. So the Council confirmed its decision to close the application. The Council told Mr X this and said he could resubmit his application if his support worker was able to provide a completed form.
7. The evidence I have seen suggests it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, the Council sent the email attaching the form and asking the support worker to complete the form. There was no fault in the Council first closing the application, as it had sent the information request to the correct email address and had not received a reply. The Council later reached its decision on the review after checking to satisfy itself it had sent out the form when it said it had and concluding it had done that. So the review had regard to what Mr X said and to the evidence the Council had. Therefore the Council seems to have reached the review decision properly. That means we cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 3 explained. I appreciate Mr X would have preferred the Council’s review to reopen the application immediately and resend the form. However the Council was not at fault for not agreeing to do that.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council is likely to have reached its decision properly.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman