Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to award an additional 650 points on its housing register on the grounds she needs to remain in the Borough. She said, if it had handled her homelessness application properly at the outset, she could have applied to another Borough where she would have more priority.
2. Ms X also complained the Council had not responded to a subject access request and that it had sent her an internal email in error, which amounted to a data breach.
3. Ms X said the Council’s failings had caused stress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Events in 2023

7. Ms X said she initially made a homelessness application to this Council. As it was not assisting her, she made another application to Council B. Council B said it would not accept an application whilst she still had an open application with this Council. This Council did not provide a letter confirming it would not assist her, so she was not able to pursue her application with Council B. Subsequently, this Council accepted a main homelessness duty to her.
8. Ms X says, if this Council had closed its application and allowed her to pursue one with Council B, she would be in a better position as she would have been awarded more priority on Council B’s housing register.
9. We will not investigate this part of Ms X’s complaint because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome by doing so. This Council accepted a main homelessness duty and can only end or discharge it in certain circumstances set out in relevant legislation. Even if we found this Council was at fault in the way it handled matters in 2023, and I have not seen evidence to suggest it was, it is not possible to put Ms X back in the position she would have been in had she pursued a homelessness application with Council B instead.

Housing register application

10. This Council’s allocations policy says it will award 200 points to applicants where it has accepted a main homelessness duty, which it has done.
11. Ms X asked it to award 650 points in line with paragraph 7.5 of its allocation policy, which says where the homeless applicant is “assessed as having a need to remain in Enfield” in line with its placement policy, it will award 650 points and make a direct offer. Paragraph 4.4.1 of the placement policy says it will give priority for accommodation in Enfield and its vicinity to those in paid employment where a move out of Enfield “would result in termination of the employment with no prospects of finding employment in the new location”. Paragraph 4.4.5 of the placement policy says it will also consider the needs of adults in education.
12. Ms X says she is currently employed in Council B’s area. At the time of her request, she was due to take up a training post with her employer. She said this meant she needed to remain in Enfield.
13. The Council considered her request. It explained it did not consider it necessary for her to remain in Enfield because it was reasonable for her to travel up to 90 minutes for employment or training. In its stage 1 review, it set out the relevant parts of the allocations and placement policies. It explained the bar for remaining in Enfield was high and that Ms X’s specific circumstances did not demonstrate a need to do so. In a further (final) review, the Council explained the allocations policy allowed it to award 650 points where an applicant needed to remain in Enfield, not just in its vicinity, and that criteria had not been met.
14. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. We can consider its decision-making but, unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
15. Council records show it considered Ms X’s circumstances, its allocations policy and placement policy at each decision point. It explained the reasons for its decision and made its decisions without undue delay. The key point here was whether Ms X needed to remain in Enfield. It explained that, whilst her employment and proposed education required her to be in the vicinity, they did not require her to remain in Enfield, which meant the criteria for additional points was not met. Its decision was in line with its allocations policy.
16. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify us investigating further.

Data protection

17. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider complaints about a failure to provide a proper response to a subject access request and about possible breaches of data protection rules.
18. For all the above reasons, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman