Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to exclude her from its housing register. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to exclude her from its housing register. She says the Council did not properly consider its public sector equality duties in relation to her children’s medical conditions. She also says it did not consider the impact of the length of her tenancy on her children or their long-term housing stability.

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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register because she considered her home unsuitable for health reasons. The Council decided she did not qualify to join its register because she did not meet any of the priority banding criteria in its housing allocation policy.
6. The Council’s housing allocation policy says an applicant does not qualify to join its housing register if they do not meet any of the priority banding criteria. The priority banding criteria sets out the circumstances an applicant should be rehoused, including where there are medical or overcrowding needs.
7. The Council’s decision and complaint responses show that it considered:
• Its eligibility criteria under its housing allocation policy;
• Its public sector equality duties;
• The evidence Miss X provided, including her children’s medical conditions;
• Whether her current accommodation was affecting those conditions; and
• The length of her private tenancy.
8. The Council determined there was no evidence to suggest that Miss X’s accommodation was adversely affecting her children’s health or that there was another housing need which meant she qualified under its priority banding criteria.
9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered relevant information, took into account its public sector equality duties, and made a decision in line with its allocation policy. I do not consider the length of Miss X’s tenancy meant her accommodation was unsuitable or meant she qualified for any other priority banding criteria. There is therefore not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman