Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to remove her application from the housing register because she did not meet the 12-month residency requirements in its allocations procedure. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X applied to the Council for rehousing after being place in interim accommodation in September 2020. The Council rejected her application because it says she has not lived in its area for the 12 months previous to making the application. She asked for a review of the decision and the Council did not change its view about her being ineligible.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Miss X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X applied for rehousing in 2020 and her application was removed from the housing register by the Council. It told her that she had not lived in the Council’s area for the previous 12 months continuously and its allocations policy contains a residency requirement of 12 months.
5. Miss X appealed against the Council’s decision, but this was not upheld. It said the evidence she provided and other information confirmed that she had been living outside the area before February 2020.
6. We do not investigate complaints just because the complainant feels they should be rehoused by a council. Unless there is fault in the assessment of the application, they cannot ask for the decision to be changed. We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided.
7. In this case the Council decided there was sufficient evidence to confirm Miss X had not lived in the area long enough to meet the residency qualification. Since she complained to us Miss X has presented herself as homeless to the Council and it has accepted a limited duty to assist her in finding accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman