Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council made errors regarding his housing register account. He says the Council will not accept he is entitled to a two bedroom house or recognise that he has shared care for his child. Mr X wants the Council to honour the agreement that he can bid for a two bedroom house.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the allocations policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X joined the housing register as a single person and then added his child. The Council should have suspended the claim and sought further information about the child but it did not do so. This meant Mr X was wrongly able to bid for houses for about a year.
5. The Council then realised it had made an error. It explained that when children live in two households, only the primary carer can apply for houses and the other parent can bid for flats or maisonettes. It apologised and explained Mr X had not lost out on an offer of housing.
6. The current position is that Mr X can bid for one or two bedroom flats or maisonettes.
7. Mr X disagrees with the decision because he has shared care for his child. Mr X showed the court order to the Council. The Council told me it states that Mr X has his child to stay for about 65 nights a year plus some time during the week that does not include overnight stays. The Council does not agree this is a shared care agreement but does agree Mr X regularly cares for his child.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. The allocations policy says parents who are not the primary carer for a child cannot bid for houses but may be granted an extra bedroom to recognise that they care for a child. The Council’s decision to allow Mr X to bid for two bedroom flats reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. The Council made an error by not restricting Mr X to flats from the date he added his child to the application. However, the impact does not require an investigation. This is because the Council apologised and Mr X did not lose out on an offer of housing. The Council initially allowed him to bid for houses but, once it became aware of the mistake, it had to follow the policy and restrict his bids to flats. The Council could not allow Mr X to continue to have access to houses as that would be an on-going breach of the policy and would be unfair to other applicants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman