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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application. He said the Council failed to consider his medical needs and evidence of his local connection to the area in its decision to cancel his application on the basis that he did not have a qualifying connection.
2. Mr X says that he is constantly stressed and depressed because of his geographical isolation and would like the Council to place him on its housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; 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

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.

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for the Council’s housing register on 7 April 2025. He provided evidence of his health and support needs in support of his application.
7. The Council requested proof of his support network in the area to establish his local connection and to fully process his application.
8. Mr X said he no longer had an active local area connection and said he could provide evidence showing he previously had a local area connection in 2014, but cannot prove he has a current one, unless it included his grandparents or his mother’s place of work. Mr X expressed discomfort with the Council request for more information, stating that he believed “the information requested of the relatives is too intrusive”.
9. The Council explained that under its Allocation Policy, while health and support needs were considered when prioritising eligible applications, they did not override the fundamental eligibility criteria, one of which was a verified local connection to the area.
10. The Council explained that as Mr X had identified his grandparents as his only potential qualifying relatives to meet the local connection criteria, his application could not proceed without their supporting information.
11. The Council explained that Mr X’s personal statement made it clear that he was living and working in its area prior to his studies and not solely for the purpose of study. However, under its Allocation Policy, time spent within its area needed to be supported by verifiable documentation that established an eligible local connection. No such documentation was received to establish eligibility.
12. The evidence shows that the Council assessed and reviewed Mr X’s housing application in line with its Allocation Policy. All the evidence Mr X provided was considered as part of its assessment.
13. We are not an appeals body. It is not our role to provide an appeals process for the Council’s decisions. Our role is to look at the way the Council has reached its decisions. If there is no fault in the way a decision was reached, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself.
14. The Council explained that Mr X’s health and support needs did not override the fundamental eligibility criteria that must be met to be included on its housing register. It clearly explained and reiterated the process for submitting the required evidence when Mr X requested clarification.
15. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or 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.
16. We note that the Council admitted fault and apologised for its delays in providing Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses. It also put a performance improvement plan in place to clear the backlog and ensure new complaints were handled promptly. We consider this a sufficient remedy and have determined that this does not amount to maladministration that would cause a significant personal injustice that would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman