Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has not fully considered her circumstances when it rejected her housing application. Mrs X said this distressed her. There was fault in the way the Council did not fully consider or respond to Mrs X’s appeal. This has not caused Mrs X a significant personal injustice and the Council has acted to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council has not fully considered her circumstances when it rejected her housing application. Mrs X said this distressed her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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

4. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

7. 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))
8. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

9. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

10. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
11. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
12. The Council policy says an applicant must have a local connection which includes and immediate family member which is defined as a parent, sibling or adult child.
13. The policy also details some exceptions to the local connection requirement including if an applicant needs to receive care from an immediate family member or they need to move to the area for a special or exceptional reason, which must be agreed by a senior officer.

What happened

14. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
15. Mrs X does not live in the Council area. She applied to join the Council housing allocation scheme to move closer to a family member. The Council rejected her application in April 2024. The Council said Mrs X did not have a local connection.
16. Mrs X appealed against the Council decision at the start of May 2025. She explained her circumstances and confirmed while her relative was not the immediate family member set out in the policy, they were the closest family member Mrs X had. Mrs X asked the Council to exercise its discretion to waive the local connection requirement.
17. The Council reviewed the appeal the following week. The Council stated Mrs X must have a local connection and given the family member was not an immediate family member, they would not accept the application.
18. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mrs X would like the Council to allow her to join the housing register.
19. In response to my enquiries the Council said there was no evidence to suggest the relative was providing support which required Mrs X to move closer. The Council confirmed it had reviewed Mrs X’s case again and repeated she did not have an appropriate local connection. It also confirmed she was appropriately housed and would likely not meet the financial criteria in the policy, as well as the lack of local connection, so the decision not to accept her onto the housing register remained. The Council said it had trained its staff.

My findings

20. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or failed to properly explain a decision it has made. We call this ‘fault’, and where we find it, we can consider the consequences of the fault and ask the council to address these.
21. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against council decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf. If we do not find fault in how a council has made a decision, then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is the wrong decision. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
22. The Council has discretion to assess the eligibility of each applicant for the housing register. In Mrs X’s appeal document, she detailed her circumstances to support her appeal. The Council response has only focused on the local connection part of the appeal. There is no evidence to confirm if the Council did not consider these points, or if it did not explain its decision fully in its response letter. The Council did not fully consider Mrs X’s circumstances or adequately explain its reasoning. This is fault.
23. However, in response to my enquiries the Council has explained its position, and detailed other parts of its policy Mrs X would likely not meet. The Council has made a decision in accordance with its policy. While the Council was at fault for not detailing its consideration of the appeal in the rejection letter, the outcome would remain the same. There is not a significant personal injustice to Mrs X.
24. The Council has identified necessary service improvements as a result of Mrs X’s complaint and has provided training to its officers to ensure decisions are properly considered and communicated effectively to applicants.

Back to top

Decision

25. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, but this has not caused a significant personal injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman