The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says the Council did not assess his application in line with the housing allocations policy and did not reassess fully following his appeal of the decision. He also complains the Council did not take proper account under the Equality Act of his disabilities and did not properly respond to his subject access request.
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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) 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 Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council decided Mr X is not eligible to join its housing register.
Mr X says the council failed to apply the housing allocations policy correctly in relation to medical needs. Mr X did not state he had medical needs in his original application form. In his appeal, he said he had medical needs but did not supply many details. The Council decided there was not enough evidence to give the application medical priority. In the circumstances we would be unlikely to find fault with that if we investigated.
Mr X says the Council did not give his housing application priority for his being homeless. The Council would only do that where it had already, separately, accepted a legal homelessness duty to the applicant. That had not happened in this case. Therefore an investigation would be unlikely to fault the Council on this point. .
Mr X says the Council should use its discretion to let someone join the housing register due to exceptional circumstances. However, the Council decided Mr X did not supply enough evidence for them to determine if his circumstances warranted this discretion. The Council was entitled to make that decision and, in the circumstances, we are unlikely to fault it.
On appeal, Mr X did provide further information. The Council concluded there was not substantive evidence to change its original decision on the housing application. The evidence suggests the Council reached that decision properly, so we cannot criticise the decision.
Mr X did not supply all the necessary documents the housing application form required. Mr X did not supply his current address. He stated he earned £31,000 a year. That was higher than the £30,000 threshold for joining the Council’s housing register. The Council also obtained information Mr X owed rent arrears to a previous landlord. The Council also cited these points as reasons for refusing the application and appeal of their decision. That was in line with the Council’s housing allocation policy. So there is not enough evidence of fault here.
Mr X says the Council did not take proper account of his disability, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act. We have seen no evidence Mr X gave the Council details of any disability or of any adjustment he wanted the Council to make for this. In the circumstances we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s consideration of this point.
Mr X says the Council did not deal properly with his request for information it held (subject access request). We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data handling. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Information Commissioner has the expertise and power to decide such matters. It is not appropriate for us to investigate this point, especially when we are not investigating the main points of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman