The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s actions related to her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council has unfairly cancelled her housing register application. She says this has caused distress. She wants the Council to reinstate her application, apologise and compensate her for the distress caused.
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)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Councils must have a published allocation scheme to manage the allocation of social housing within their area. The Council’s scheme sets out eligibility criteria for joining and remaining on the housing register, as well as information about how it determines applicants’ priority and allocates its properties. The scheme says applicants must continue to live in the borough following their application if they wish to remain on the housing register.
In its complaint response, the Council said it had not removed her from the housing register, but had temporarily de-activated her account. It said it had taken this action because she provided information during a telephone call which indicated she may not be permanently residing within the borough. It acknowledged it may have misunderstood her situation. It invited her to provide proof of settled residence within the borough, and said if she provided this, it would reinstate her application.
It also advised her where she could get further advice and assistance with her housing situation and assistance to help her submit the requested information, if needed.
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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
We will not investigate this complaint. Following information Ms X provided, the Council was not satisfied she met the criteria to remain on the housing register. It has given her the opportunity to provide information to support her position that she remains eligible and said it will re-instate her application if she provides proof of settled residency within the borough. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman