Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an application to join the Council’s housing register. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council as it has assessed Ms B’s application in line with its policy, considered whether to grant an exception, and properly explained its decision. Ms B struggled to send information in time, but there is not evidence of a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to support her with her housing application, seeking many documents in a short timescale. The Council has turned her down for housing which has affected her mental health. Ms B remains in housing where she has been the target of hate crime, and she does not know how she can move. Ms B wants to move and wants compensation.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms B moved to the Council’s area and applied to join the housing register. The Council has qualifying criteria, which Ms B does not meet.
7. Ms B sent in supporting evidence but says she struggled with this due to her disabilities and the short timescale. I have nothing to suggest Ms B asked the Council for extra time or to make any reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. It seems Ms B did manage to submit her information and there is therefore not a significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. If Ms B believes there is further information she still wishes to send, she should contact the Council about this.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot challenge the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision making. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has considered Ms B’s information in line with its policy, including whether to allow an exception. Although Ms B is distressed in her accommodation, this is not evidence of fault in the Council’s decision or the way it has investigated. The Council’s actions do not cause the claimed injustice.
9. The police have been involved about the hate crime, and they would be the correct body to handle that issue. Ms B can also raise issues of harassment with the police if she has not already done so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. It is unlikely we would add anything further to what the Council has already told Ms B. Although Ms B struggled to send her information, there is not evidence of a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman