Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision he did not qualify to join its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its allocations policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council decided he did not qualify to join its housing register because he did not have a local connection. He says the Council should have exercised discretion because his current home is unsuitable for his children’s medical needs. He says he has lived in the area for five years, his children attend school there and his support network is there.
2. Mr X also complains about delay, poor communication and poor complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council’s allocations policy says an applicant must have a local connection to its area to qualify for the housing register. This can be established by the applicant having lived in the area for six years, or through a qualifying family connection. The policy also allows the Council to exercise discretion and waive the local connection requirement in exceptional circumstances. 
8. At the time of his application, Mr X had lived in the area for five years and therefore did not meet the six-year residence requirement. The Council considered whether the family’s medical and welfare needs justified exercising discretion. It considered the medical evidence and accepted the family had significant needs. However, it found the children’s school was outside its area, medical treatment could be accessed while living elsewhere and there were no open safeguarding concerns requiring the family to live in its area. It therefore decided the family’s needs could be met elsewhere and there were insufficient grounds to waive the local connection requirement.
9. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
10. The Council must offer housing in line with its policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council applied its policy, so we cannot question its decision and will not investigate this complaint point. 
11. Mr X also complains about delay. The Council decided Mr X’s housing application within eight weeks and made its review decision within four weeks of his review request. Both these decisions were made within the expected timeframes. There is insufficient evidence of delay in either decision, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint. 
12. Mr X also complains of poor communication and complaint handling. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its allocations policy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman