Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council refusing to allow admittance to the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council refusing to allow admittance to the housing register. She says the Council has refused to consider her supporting evidence from medical professionals and it has not considered exceptional circumstances.

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))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, 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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X says the Council has refused to allow her to join the housing register.
7. The Council’s policy says to be eligible for the housing register, you must be a resident in the area for three years. Or if you are temporarily living out of the area because of being in hospital or prison for example, you must have been a resident for at least three of the past five years. It will then look into any exceptional reasons for someone moving away from the area.
8. The Council rejected Ms X’s application because although she had spent several years in the area up to 2023, she had moved away before later returning. It says that Ms X accepted two assured shorthold tenancies which it did not consider as temporary moves away.
9. While I note that Ms X remains unhappy with the decision taken by the Council, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council considered Ms X’s application in line with its policy and based its decision upon the address history provided by Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms 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