The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s request for housing help. There is not enough evidence the Council was at fault.
The complaint
Ms X complains for her adult son Mr Y. She complains the Council did not treat Mr Y’s approach for housing help in 2021 as a reapplication for homelessness help under section 195A of the Housing Act 1996 and that it decided Mr Y did not have a local connection, so did not let him join the housing register. Ms X says this resulted in Mr Y remaining in his current home, which is no longer suitable as his physical needs have changed, so he has become lonely and isolated.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Councils must secure housing for certain homelessness applicants. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2) I shall call this the section 193(2) duty.
In 2020, when Mr Y was homeless, the Council gave Mr Y help to move into a private rented property outside the Council’s area. Ms X says that meant Mr Y’s approach for housing help again in 2021 amounted to a reapplication under section 195A of the Housing Act 1996. Section 195A requires the Council to owe an applicant the section 193(2) duty in certain circumstances. However, section 195A would only apply to Mr Y’s 2021 circumstances if the Council had, in 2020: owed Mr Y the section 193(2) duty and offered Mr Y his current tenancy to end that section 193(2) duty.
Here, the Council says while it gave Mr Y some help getting his tenancy in 2020, it had not accepted a section 193(2) duty to him, nor did it not offer Mr Y that tenancy to end a section 193(2) duty.
Nothing Ms X described in her correspondence with the Council about this, and nothing the Council described amounts to evidence the Council offered Mr Y his tenancy in 2020 to end a section 193(2) duty. Therefore, section 195A would not have applied when Mr Y contacted the Council again about housing. So there was no fault in the Council not treating this as a section 195A situation and instead treating it as a regular application to the housing register.
I have gone on to consider how the Council dealt with that housing register application. The Council refused to let Mr Y join its housing register because it said he did not meet the local connection criteria in its policy.
Ms X says Mr Y has a local connection because he attended school in the Council’s area and because Ms X has lived there for 60 years. However, it is for the Council to decide the local connection criteria. The points Ms X makes are not criteria in the Council’s policy. So there was no fault by the Council there.
Mr Y does not meet the criteria that automatically give local connection in the Council’s policy. The only part of the policy that might have applied to Mr Y was the Council’s discretion to consider ‘special circumstances.’ On that point, the Council considered the arguments and information it received about Mr Y’s case, decided it was not satisfied the threshold for special circumstances was reached, and gave reasons for its decision. Therefore, the Council reached that decision properly. That means we cannot criticise that decision, as paragraph 3 explained, although Mr Y and Ms X are entitled to disagree with the Council.
Someone might be legally homeless if it is not reasonable to continue living in their home. Ms X says Mr Y’s physical difficulties mean this applies in Mr Y’s current home. As Mr Y does not live in the Council’s area, he can seek homelessness help first from the local authority where he lives.
Ms X says the Council breached the Equality Act regarding Mr Y’s disability. Only a court can rule on whether unlawful discrimination occurred. In terms of the Ombudsman’s role, the evidence indicates the Council had regard to the information it had about Mr Y’s medical condition and disability when it considered whether ‘special circumstances’ applied. I do not see evidence of fault there.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman