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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his housing register application. He believes the Council incorrectly rejected his application on the basis that he was a homeowner. He claimed that he ceased to be a proprietor of the property in 2025.

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 applied to join the Council’s housing allocation scheme for social housing in or around February 2019. Mr X was initially accepted on the register and bid for properties. In or around August 2025, Mr X was excluded from the register on the grounds that he was a registered proprietor of a property and therefore had access to market housing. Mr X claimed not to be a homeowner and considered the Council’s decision to be incorrect.
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. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and its allocation scheme. It also made enquiries and conducted various checks when reaching its decision. It explained its reasons for deciding that excluding Mr X from the housing register was appropriate. It is noted from Land Registry copies that Mr X was a joint proprietor of the property since 2020 and remained to be so until in January 2025. This means that Mr X was a homeowner whilst his housing register application was active and this is prohibited by the Council’s housing allocation policy.
8. The allocations policy also says: ‘Applicants will be disqualified, and might be prosecuted, if they deliberately withhold information, provide misleading information, or do not notify the Local Authority of any change in circumstances’. The Housing Act 1996 s. 171 outlines the legal consequences for providing false information or withholding information in housing applications. ‘It is an offence to knowingly or recklessly make a statement that is false in a material particular or withhold information that the authority has reasonably required’.
9. The Council says Mr X failed to disclose his proprietorship when completing his housing application and he remains disqualified. The Council is the housing authority and it has a duty to ensure that the allocations policy is operated with due diligence. It must also ensure that applications comply with the requirements of the housing 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