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

The complaint

1. Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing allocation case: Mr X alleges that his housing application was processed unfairly with delays along the way and that his appeal to move in with his friend for the duration of their remaining years has been dismissed without a reasonable explanation.
   
   Mr X complains that this has left him feeling discriminated against at a time when he finds himself requiring more support due to advancement of age.
   
   Mr X would like the Council to re-process his application for joint tenancy as he doesn’t feel that it was addressed fairly.

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 investigation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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. The complainant has been a Barnet resident since 2003, and his complaints relate to the complainant’s current housing register assessment: the Council’s refusal to consider the details for his change in circumstances to award him a joint tenancy with his family friend, and the length of times it has taken to process his application, which is unprofessional.

6. The complainant is frustrated that after a triage appointment about a proposed joint housing application with a close friend who is a council tenant in another borough, the Council had reviewed his file and assessed that there had been no change in circumstances.

7. The Council’s record of responses to Mr X shows that it assessed his circumstances including the personal information and medical assessment that Mr X had provided, and their assessment was awarded correctly in accordance with its policies and procedures: Barnet Homes’ Allocations Scheme, which states:

“joint tenancies are normally granted by the council or a Private Registered Provider where applicants have a long-term commitment, for example, married, or unmarried couples, or civil partners. This decision is for the council or relevant Private Registered Provider offering accommodation, who will decide whether to allow a joint tenancy depending on the circumstances”.

8. With Mr X escalating the complaint to Stage 2, the Council responded on 22 September 2025, upholding the Stage 1 response. However, the Council did acknowledge that it found delays in communicating with the complainant and issued sincere apologies for the delays and gave assurance that they are taking this learning on board.

9. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

10. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman is unlikely to find fault simply because Mr X disagrees with the outcome because the substance of the complaint is essentially a challenge to the Council’s housing allocation assessment.

11. Final decision

I have decided not to pass the complaint to Investigation and to close the complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. The Ombudsman cannot offer Mr X the remedy what he wishes as they are unable to intervene in the Council’s processes for housing allocations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman