Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not giving Mrs X sufficient priority on the housing register, only allowing her to bid on three-bedroom properties and failing to remove her eldest daughter from the housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not given her sufficient priority on its housing register and says the Council will only allow her to bid on three-bedroom properties. She says as a result, her family is living in unsuitable accommodation. She also complains the Council failed to remove her daughter from her housing application which meant she missed an opportunity to be rehoused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s housing application has been given the highest priority band – Band A. The Council said this was because it accepted her household was statutorily overcrowded.
7. The Council also explained, under its allocation scheme, the allowed property size for Mrs X’s household was three bedrooms. One bedroom for Mrs X and her husband, one for her two sons, and one for her two daughters. The Council confirmed Mrs X’s eldest daughter did not qualify for a bedroom due to being over 21 years of age.
8. The Council said it considered whether to exercise discretion to allow Mrs X to bid on four-bedroom properties but said it decided not to. This was because Mrs X’s application had sufficient priority to be shortlisted for and to be offered a three-bedroom property. In addition, it was not reasonable to allow her to take a four-bedroom property when her household could be accommodated in a three-bedroom property.
9. It is for the Council to decide whether it will exercise discretion. The Council made its decision properly as it has demonstrated it considered all the relevant information. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the decision itself.
10. Mrs X complained the Council failed to remove her daughter from her housing application. She said this meant the family were passed over for a property.
11. Under the Council’s allocations scheme, anyone over the age of 21 is disregarded when calculating a household’s bedroom entitlement. However, this does not mean the individual is removed from the housing application itself.
12. It is likely Mrs X’s eldest daughter remained listed as part of the household in Mrs X’s housing application because there is no evidence Mrs X told the Council to remove her eldest daughter from her household, or that her eldest daughter was no longer living with them. The Council appropriately told Mrs X to let it know if her household had changed.
13. We asked Mrs X to provide information as to whether her eldest daughter was still living with her and whether she had told the Council her eldest daughter was no longer part of her household. Mrs X did not respond to our enquiries.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman