The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he is not eligible for its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the decision was made to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision he is not eligible for its housing register. He said the Council discriminated against him as a father when refusing to accept he is the primary carer of his children.
Mr X said that his children were living in overcrowded accommodation and were sleeping on the floor.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
When Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register, he said he was the primary carer of his children, who had been living with him since 2022. The Council decided he was not eligible in 2023. This decision was upheld on review in early 2024.
The Council’s review decision sets out its reasons for deciding, on balance, that Mr X is not the primary carer for his children. Its reasons were set out in detail and included that: Mr X had repeatedly refused to provide bank statements to show his expenditure was consistent with a parent with primary responsibility for his children, despite Mr X having confirmed he understood why the Council was asking for this information.
There were inconsistencies relating to the benefits claimed and the number of children Mr X said he was caring for, which meant the Council was not satisfied the benefits position reflected the reality.
Other family members had provided information that was not consistent with Mr X’s account.
Evidence obtained from a home visit did not support the claim that Mr X’s children were living with him on a full-time basis, as opposed to visiting him at his address, and staying overnight some of the time.
We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decided whether the decision was correct. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. Unless there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
Having considered the review decision, and he additional evidence Mr X provided, I am satisfied the Council considered relevant factors. It was for the Council to decide how much weight to give the evidence it considered, and it explained in its review decision that parts of its decision were “on balance” (what was more likely than not to be the case). It has set out its reasons in detail.
In addition, the detailed reasons given for the review decision do not support the claim that the Council discriminated against Mr X when it made its decision.
We will not consider the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman