Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s housing application. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now and it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on old events. On other points, there is not enough evidence of fault, or we could not achieve more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has mishandled his housing application for many years. He says this has caused distress and inconvenience from living in housing that is overcrowded and does not meet his family’s medical needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Events 2010 to 2023

7. Mr X says the Council wrongly handled his housing application in various ways from 2010 to 2023. That was over 12 months before Mr X complained to us in December 2024. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies. Mr X knew years ago about many of the points he raises. He could reasonably have complained to us sooner. Information about how to complain about councils has been widely available from councils and other sources. Also, it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view now, on balance, about those events, especially the ones many years ago. I am not persuaded to accept the late complaint about events before 2024.

Events in 2024

8. Mr X also complains about events in 2024. This part of the complaint is not late.
9. Mr X says the Council changed his entitlement on the housing register from four-bedroomed properties to two-bedroomed properties without telling him this or giving its reasons. The Council accepted some fault on this point. It reissued the decision and then reviewed the decision at Mr X’s request. We could not achieve significantly more on this point.
10. Mr X has adult children living with him. The Council removed those people from Mr X’s housing application. This in turn reduced the number of bedrooms Mr X can be considered for in social housing. Mr X says the Council was wrong to remove the children from the application. The Council reviewed its decision. Mr X provided information for the review. The review considered the Council’s housing allocations policy and medical and other information it had about the family. The Council upheld the decision to remove the adult children from the application.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide who the application should include. Our role is to consider how the Council reached its decision. The Council was entitled to make this decision, which it made after considering relevant information and giving reasons for the decision. Therefore the decision appears properly reached, so investigation would be unlikely to find fault here. So, as paragraph 4 explained, we cannot criticise the decision, although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
12. The Council’s policy states adult children who would otherwise be removed from a housing application can be included if the Council has accepted a legal homelessness duty to the applicant. The Council has not accepted such a duty in Mr X’s case. Mr X says this is wrong, arguing his household is legally homeless because they live in temporary accommodation and because their home is unsuitable for reasons relating to disability and overcrowding.
13. I have seen no evidence Mr X’s home is homelessness temporary accommodation. He has lived there for many years while being on the housing register for non-homelessness reasons rather than having homelessness priority on the register as those living in temporary accommodation and owed a homelessness duty would have. The Council says it has not accepted a homelessness duty on the other points.
14. This part of the Council’s policy is about whether, as a matter of fact, the Council has already accepted a legal homelessness duty. Here, it has not. So there is no fault in its not treating Mr X’s application as if the Council owes such a duty. If Mr X believes the Council should treat him as legally homeless, he should apply as homeless, giving his reasons, and get a written homelessness decision from the Council.
15. Mr X says the Council has removed him from the housing register due to wrongly calculating his household’s income. The complaint and review correspondence between Mr X and the Council that Mr X sent me did not cover this matter. I have seen no evidence the Council has yet has a reasonable opportunity to deal with this point. Mr X should complete the Council’s review or complaint procedure about this matter before complaining about it to us.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now and it is unlikely we could reach a clear enough view on old events. On other points, there is not enough evidence of fault or we could not achieve more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman