Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s consideration of his homeless and housing waiting list application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X registered as homeless with the Council following the issue of a court order which prevented him from living in his marital home. He says the order allows 50% contact provision with his children and so he applied for housing for a two-bedroom property so that his children could stay over. He says the Council has refused to accept that he has dependent children and says it is only likely to re-house him as a single person.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X approached the Council as homeless when he was excluded from his marital home by a court order. He says the order allows him 50% contact with his children and he asked the Council to rehouse him in a two bedroomed property. The Council interviewed him and advised him that it could only offer temporary accommodation in the private sector. Mr X declined the offer of private rented accommodation.
6. He applied to the Council’s housing waiting list and it advised him to bid on one-bedroomed properties because two bedroomed properties are usually allocated to applicants with children who are resident with them. The Council’s allocation policy requires applicants with dependent children to be in receipt of child benefit for them at their home address. Mr X’s application does not fall into this category even though he is not prevented for bidding on two-bedroomed properties.
7. The Council properly considered Mr X’s homeless application, but he declined the offer of temporary accommodation. He would need to challenge any decision about the status of his children in the County Court because the Ombudsman cannot determine a point of law. Only the courts can decide if a council has interpreted the legislation and the government Code of Guidance lawfully.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. Mr X has been given the correct banding for his status according to the Council’s scheme of allocation. Councils are free to decide their own allocation schemes and although he may still bid on larger properties, he is unlikely to succeed against applicants who have children resident with them.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman