Summary: Miss D complains the Council incorrectly closed her housing register account. I have not found fault by the Council. It acted in line with its policies and procedures.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council incorrectly suspended her housing register account in 2023 because she owned a property. Miss D says there was a fraud carried out which she was unaware of in relation to the property ownership issue. Miss D wants the Council to reinstate her onto the housing register and assist her in finding a permanent home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have exercised discretion to look back to events in 2023. I have taken account of Miss D’s statements that she was trying to pursue the fraud issue after she received the Council’s review decision in April 2024. In addition, Miss D had personal circumstances which made it harder for her to take forward her case sooner. My investigation looks at what happened, in relation to the decision to close the housing register account, from April 2023 through to October 2025.
4. Miss D referred to her temporary accommodation being unsuitable in her complaint. I have advised Miss D that I am not investigating this matter. Her representatives are currently pursuing a statutory suitability review with the Council. If Miss D does not agree with the review outcome, she can progress the matter to court. If Miss D feels the Council is mishandling the review process, she can complain to the Council. Once she has completed the two stage complaint process she can bring those new matters to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2023

7. On 12 May 2023 the Council notified Miss D she had been ranked in second place for a social housing property she had bid for using the Council’s Choice Based Lettings process. On 18 May the Council carried out verification checks to see if it should award the tenancy to Miss D, that included a financial check. The results showed Miss D as an ‘active mortgage associate’ for a property. On 5 June the Council notified Miss D she had been bypassed for the property due to verification checks identifying she was named on a mortgage. Her housing account was suspended. The Council asked for the documentation relating to the mortgage. Miss D had 28 days to reply, or her housing register application would be closed.
8. On 19 July Miss D asked the Council to review its decision, she supplied a copy of mortgage papers for a property where she was named as a borrower. She said she had been unaware her name was on a mortgage and this had been done without her consent. She said the Council should consider her case as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ as set out in the allocations policy. On 10 August the Council wrote to Miss D. She had requested a review outside of the 21-day period allowed. It said its decision stood. It appears the Council subsequently decided to exercise discretion and consider a review request. On 4 October the Council wrote to Miss D about her review request regarding the decision to suspend her housing register application. Because Miss D was named on a mortgage, she was ineligible to remain on the housing register. Consequently, the Council had decided to close her housing register application. Miss D had a new right of review for that decision and would need to provide evidence with a review request to show she was no longer named on the mortgage.
9. On 23 October Miss D asked the Council to review its recent decision to close her account. She said she had been unaware her name was on a mortgage until the Council told her.

2024

10. On 19 February 2024 Miss D emailed the Council with additional information for the review. This included contact details for a third-party investigating Miss D’s complaint of fraud relating to the mortgage and a letter from a Social Worker which did not relate to the mortgage issue. On 4 April Miss D emailed the Council with an update on the Police investigation into the alleged fraud. It stated the case was awaiting review. The Police information did not say whether any decision had been made on the case.
11. On 16 April the Council issued its review decision. It had considered information provided by Miss D in April. The Council had considered Miss D’s statements and that she had reported the alleged fraud to the Police and its investigation was ongoing. It concluded it was correct to close her housing register application until a ‘determination of assets can be clarified’ and to wait for the outcome of the Police investigation to see if her situation could be considered as an ‘exceptional circumstance’. It asked Miss D to contact the Council again when she had the outcome of the Police investigation. Until then the application was closed because Miss D had an interest in a UK property and so was not eligible to be in the housing register.

2025

12. On 17 September 2025 Miss D complained to the Council. She said a mortgage had been taken out in her name without her consent. She had not paid for the mortgage or benefitted from it. She supplied papers including documents she said were falsified with a copy of her signature. She also supplied information from the Police in 2024 which she said showed no evidence of her involvement. The Police email from July 2024 stated all lines of enquiry in relation to an alleged fraudulent mortgage application had been exhausted. It had not been possible to prove if fraud had occurred. Miss D told the Council the review decision in 2024 was wrong. She asked the Council to reinstate her housing register account and bidding rights. On 6 October the Council replied to the complaint. It said it was more than a year since it issued the review decision, and Miss D had failed to pursue the matter sooner. The Council would not consider the complaint because it was about events occurring more than 12 months ago.

What should have happened

13. A person seeking social housing can apply to join the Council’s housing register. They complete an application form which includes questions about whether the applicant has a financial interest in a property. Under the Council’s allocations policy, a homeowner will only be considered for ‘housing allocation in exceptional circumstances’.
14. Where the Council accepts an applicant onto the housing register that person can bid for advertised social housing. If they are shortlisted for a property offer the Council will carry out verification checks to see if they remain eligible for an offer, those include financial checks which will show if a person is named on a mortgage for a UK property. If the Council finds evidence that makes the applicant ineligible for an offer of housing it will bypass them for the property and send a decision letter. The Council can also decide to remove the applicant from the housing register because they are ineligible.
15. An applicant can request the Council review decisions about their housing register account within 21 days of receiving a decision.

Was there fault by the Council

16. I have explained to Miss D that I am not reassessing whether she should be on the housing register, that is a decision for the Council to make. Instead, I have considered whether the Council adhered to the correct process when it decided to close her housing register account. Based on the evidence I have seen I do not consider the Council is at fault. As it has previously advised Miss D it will l not allow a homeowner (which includes a person named on a mortgage) to be on the housing register and receive an offer of social housing unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Council was correct, once it was made aware of the mortgage during verification checks, to bypass Miss D for a property offer. Miss D did not supply any corroborating evidence (such as a decision from the Police) up to April 2024 that fraud had occurred. It was not for the Council to determine if a criminal activity had taken place and it was right to tell Miss D it would need to see the outcome of the fraud investigation by the Police. Miss D subsequently contacted the Council in September 2025 but again failed to provide any clear evidence from the Police that a fraud had occurred. I appreciate Miss D strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision, but the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong and that applies in this case. The Council followed the correct process and was not at fault. I do not see it should have considered matters further in 2025 given Miss D was still unable to provide clear evidence from the Police that fraud had occurred.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman