Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council's handling of her housing register application. Miss X alleged that the Council breached its duties under the Equality Act and Children Act. Miss X also complained about the Council's handling of her complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X was placed in temporary accommodation in the Council’s borough by Greenwich Council. Subsequently, she made a housing application to join Dartford’s housing register. The Council determined that Miss X does not have a local connection and therefore is ineligible to join the register.
7. Miss X asked for a non-statutory review of the decision under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. The Council told her that she applied for the review out of time and rejected the request. The government guidance gives 21 days as the reasonable period for requesting a review, Miss X applied almost 3 months after the initial decision and so was out of time.
8. Councils have discretion to extend the period in certain circumstances but in this case it told her that she was under the homelessness duty of a neighbouring authority and they were responsible for rehousing her so she should apply to that body for rehousing.
9. 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.
10. The Council considered the information Miss X provided and its allocation scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding Miss X was not eligible to join its housing allocation scheme. There was no undue delay in making its decisions. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
11. Miss X completed the Council’s corporate complaints process. I am satisfied that the Council handled this process promptly.
12. Miss X says the decision breaches Equality Act 2010 or Children Act 1989. The Council says that the allocations policy is compliant with this legislation and that she would need to seek a court remedy if she wished to challenge the policy itself. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. In this case the policy refers to the legislation and the Council is satisfied that this meets the matters raised by Miss X.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman