Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly refused his application to join its housing register as it failed to consider medical evidence he had provided and discriminated against him by enforcing a residency requirement within its decision-making process despite his disability. He also complained that the Council delayed in deciding his housing register application and delayed in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him distress and has exacerbated his mental health condition.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Decision to refuse application to join the housing register

7. Mr Y applied to join the Council’s housing register in December 2024, on the grounds that while he had not been living in the Council’s area for five years, he had been living there for approximately four years and had exceptional circumstances. He asked the Council to use its discretion to allow him to join the housing register, despite not having lived in the area for long enough due to his mental health needs and the impact his existing housing, a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) was having on this.
8. After Mr Y provided information to it in April 2025, the Council considered Mr Y’s medical information, including letters from his social worker and health professionals and confirmation of his mental health diagnosis. It also considered Mr Y’s residency information for the previous five years.
9. The Council explained that Mr Y did not meet the criteria to be added to the housing register in May 2025, as he had not lived in the area for the required five years as set out in its housing allocations policy. It considered whether Mr Y’s circumstances, including his health and the impact his current housing was having on this, met the criteria for it to use discretion for an exceptional need to be added to the register. It explained the criteria for this, including where a person’s current accommodation is presenting a high risk to their mental wellbeing or where a housing need is of an urgent nature such as a person in crisis who poses an immediate risk to themselves or others. The Council said Mr Y’s risk was moderate and not high. He therefore did not meet the exceptional circumstances criteria and would not be added to the housing register.
10. Mr Y asked the Council to review the decision but was not successful and the decision was upheld in June 2025. He said the Council had discriminated against him, as it said it had had due regard to the Equality Act 2010 but should not treat him more favourably because of his disability. Mr Y said this misinterpreted the Equality Act.
11. Mr Y says the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence relating to his application. He believes that had it have had proper consideration of this, it would not have enforced its residency criteria and would have allowed his health to be considered as an exceptional circumstance, which would have allowed him to join the housing register.
12. The Council’s review decision letter refers to Mr Y’s medical evidence, including a letter from the local mental health Early Intervention Team, Mr Y’s view about the risk level associated with his medical condition and the impact of his current living arrangements had on his condition and evidence to confirm his symptoms and diagnosis. It explained that despite this evidence Mr Y did not meet the eligibility criteria to join the housing register.
13. 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. We are not an appeal body. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s assessment and decision, the Council has considered the evidence provided and applied its housing allocations policy to the circumstances and the information provided. It has therefore properly considered Mr Y’s application when making its decision and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
14. Mr Y has also complained that he was discriminated against when the Council decided his application would not be considered as having exceptional circumstances due to his mental health. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act or discriminated against an individual. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
15. In this case the Council completed an Equality Impact Assessment in 2021, to consider how its policy may affect those in any specific equality groups. By completing this assessment, the Council has taken account of its duties.
16. Further, the Council has considered Mr Y’s disability and how these may be impacted by his current housing, based on the evidence provided. It has then found that Mr Y, while his existing accommodation may present a moderate risk to his mental wellbeing, this was not at a high risk and therefore decided that the criteria to treat his application as an exceptional circumstance, were not met.
17. The Council has considered the specific details of Mr Y’s application, including his disability, its duties under the Equality Act and its’ ability to use discretion under exceptional circumstances through its decision-making process. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the equality duties, so we will not investigate.
18. Mr Y has also complained the Council took five months to decide his application, when he says this should have been completed within 56 days. The Council decided to reject Mr Y’s application to join the housing register at both initial decision and the review stages. While Mr Y may have not received a decision on his application, he did not provide all the evidence he wanted to be considered until April 2025. He then received a decision and had that decision reviewed within two months of providing that information. As the decision was to reject his application, Mr Y’s injustice is at most the uncertainty of waiting for a decision.
19. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
20. Mr Y’s uncertainty is not a serious harm or distress which would justify our investigation into the matter. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
21. As we are not investigating the substantive issue of complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council responded to or dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman