Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his housing register application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not correctly consider his circumstances and refused his application to join the housing register.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

Back to top

My assessment

7. In December 2023, Mr X appealed against the Council’s decision to refuse his application to join its housing register. He said the Council had not applied discretion when considering his application against its local connection criteria.
8. The Council reviewed its decision and sent Mr X an outcome letter in April 2024. The letter detailed how the Council considered Mr X’s information and circumstances and how it had applied its policy. It considered if he qualified under exceptional circumstances and decided he did not. It explained the reasons for its decision. It also advised he could reapply in August 2024 and provided information about other housing options.
9. Mr X sought a further review of the decision. He said the review had taken too long to complete, he could not afford private rented accommodation and was not asking for urgent housing.
10. In its reply, the Council recognised the review had been delayed and apologised. It said that discretion was applied throughout the review. It said that his housing was causing minor overcrowding, but this did not make him exempt from the local connection criteria. It advised Mr X could apply to the register in August 2024.
11. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
12. When carrying out the review, the Council considered the issues raised and its allocations scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding Mr X did not qualify to join its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation.
13. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in completing Mr X’s review. The Council have apologised for this. Further, the Council upheld its original decision and so it is unlikely the delay caused Mr X any significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council when making its decision or sufficient injustice to Mr X as a result of its delay in doing so to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman