Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing case because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his housing register application. He alleged that the Council lost his original housing application (2006-2009). He also alleged that the Council failed to consider credible evidence of his role as a carer and applied its policy rigidly, despite his extenuating circumstances. He believes that he is facing homelessness due to his living situation and feels unsupported by the Council.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X claims to have first applied to join the register between 2006 and 2009. He made another application in 2015 due to overcrowding at his family home. Mr X also claimed to be a full-time carer to his mother, to which he was in receipt of state benefits (Carer’s Allowance). In order to assess Mr X’s priority need, the Council requested evidence of his entitlement to these benefits, as well as proof of residency. Mr X expressed difficulties in providing the information requested by the Council to satisfy that he met the local connection rule. He provided screenshots of his benefit entitlement, but these were classified as invalid by the Council.
6. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. Councils have wide powers to design their allocation schemes to meet local needs, but the law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
7. There is no evidence that the Council failed to act in accordance with its allocations policy. It considered the information Mr X provided and its allocation scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding that Mr X’s documentation was not valid in order for his priority to be assessed. The Council provided Mr X with sufficient time to provide these documents. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
8. In respect of Mr X’s allegation that the Council lost his first application, we are unable to investigate the substantive issue. The Council’s stage 2 response said that it is still in the process of investigating this. If the outcome of the investigation proves the allegation to be correct, Mr X could consider submitting another complaint to us, provided he gives the Council an opportunity to remedy this fault in the first instance.
9. In respect of Mr X’s threat to homelessness, there is no evidence provided to suggest that this threat is imminent. Should Mr X have serious concerns about his living situation, he should consider raising this with the Council’s homelessness team. This would be a separate matter to his compalint about his housing application history and involves a different part of the Housing Act 1996 legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman