The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change its housing allocation scheme and how this awards priority points to her and other residents. The Council is entitled to make such changes to its policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action or how it has applied its new scheme in Ms X’s case to warrant further investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council’s decision to change its Housing Allocation Scheme unfairly reduces her chances of securing social housing. Ms X says she cannot afford her current privately rented accommodation long term. She wants the Council to reconsider its decision in her case.
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, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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 and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In May 2024, Ms X applied to Enfield Council for assistance as she was homeless. In August 2024, she found private rented accommodation.
In January 2025, the Council ended its homelessness prevention duty because Ms X had secured a tenancy. Ms X also applied to join the Council’s housing register at the same time. In line with its Housing Allocation Scheme at the time, the Council awarded Ms X 250 priority points, with another 50 points added after six months, and then an annual increase of 10%.
The Council introduced a revised Housing Allocations Scheme in late April 2025. Under this new scheme, households in privately rented accommodation no longer qualify for social housing. The Council allowed those who received points before 23 April 2025 to keep them for two years. They could still bid for properties, but the points would no longer increase annually. After two years the Council would remove the points if the applicant still lived in the borough or remove the applicant from the housing register if they moved outside the borough.
Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s new policy because she believes it makes it much harder for her to get housing. She asked the Council to let her stay on the housing register under the old rules. The Council refused her request, stating it must follow the new policy.
The Council consulted on the changes to the policy and formally adopted them through Cabinet. Councils are entitled to revise their housing allocation schemes if they meet legal duties, adopt the changes formally, and inform applicants.
We will not investigate this complaint as the Council followed the law when it changed its policy, and there is no evidence of fault in how it applied the new policy in Ms X’s case.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council decision to change its housing allocation scheme and how this awards priority points to her and other residents. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action or how it has applied its new scheme in the complainant’s case to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman