Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council rejecting Mr X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council that is likely to have significantly affected the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly reach its decision to reject his application for social housing. He says this means he and his wife have cannot get social housing and remain living in conditions that worsen their health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, copy documents from the Council and the Council’s housing allocations policy.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X queried whether the Council’s stated reason for rejection his application matched the wording of its policy. I am satisfied the Council’s policy allows it to reject applications from people who do not meet the criteria the policy gives for joining the housing register. The Council rejected Mr X’s application because it considered him ‘adequately housed.’ That can reasonably be taken to mean the Council did not consider Mr X met the criteria for inclusion on the housing register. I consider that was within the Council’s powers, whatever the actual wording used.
8. The law says the Council’s housing register must give ‘reasonable preference’ to certain categories of people. (Housing Act 1996, Housing Act 1996, s166A(3)) Mr X says two of those categories were relevant to his application: people living in unsatisfactory housing conditions and people needing to move on medical or welfare grounds. It is for the Council to define what meets those criteria.
9. Mr X argued the criteria applied to him because of disrepair in his home, including cracks in the walls and draughts that made the property cold, especially in winter. He said this caused unaffordable heating bills and the cold worsened his and his wife’s medical conditions.
10. Mr X supplied copies of emails with his letting agent about disrepair. The Council decided the disrepair described was not significant enough to qualify for inclusion on the housing register under this part of its policy. That decision seems properly reached, so I cannot criticise it, as paragraph 4 said.
11. Mr X also supplied various medical information about him and his wife. I note none of the information from medical professionals said the housing situation was significantly affecting any medical condition. The Council was not persuaded this information met the threshold for inclusion on the housing register for a medical or welfare need to move. That was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and it appears properly reached.
12. The review decision said Mr X’s home had one bedroom. That was inaccurate; there are two bedrooms. However, the Council’s view of the number of bedrooms was not directly relevant to whether Mr X could join the housing register as there was no suggestion the property was unreasonably overcrowded. Nor am I persuaded that this inaccuracy showed the Council failed properly to consider the review overall in a way that undermined the Council’s decision.
13. Mr X is dissatisfied the Council did not ask him for further evidence or clarification before making its decisions. That was not fault. The onus was on Mr X to provide all the necessary information.
14. The Council did not deal with Mr X’s concerns in its complaint procedure. That was not fault. The substantive matter had completed the housing allocations review procedure. Also, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
15. Mr X says the Council communicated poorly, including delaying deciding his original application and doing the review. I have not found evidence of fault that is likely to have meant a different substantive outcome on whether Mr X could join the housing register. Therefore it would be disproportionate for us to devote resources to considering the Council’s communications or the delays.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman