The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove the complainant from the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to remove her from the housing register.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the letters about her removal from the register and the allocations policy in force at the time. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The policy in force in 2019 said people must have a housing need, as defined by the policy, to be on the housing register. Under the current policy, people aged over 60 can apply to join the register regardless of housing need.
The Council accepted Ms X onto the housing register because she had a medical need for a bath. The Council removed Ms X from the register in 2019 because it decided she no longer had a housing need. This was because Ms X had reported that she no longer needed a bath and there was a lift to assist with her mobility problems. The Council confirmed the decision on review and explained why each of the points Ms X had raised did not count as a housing need. The Council later told Ms X she could reapply to join the housing register because she is over 60 years old.
Ms X found her own Housing Association property in May 2020. She says it did not have a bath when she moved in although there is a bath now.
Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision and says it ignored her need for security of tenure. She says the Council’s decision did not reflect the policy.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council’s decision to remove Ms X from the register was consistent with the policy because she no longer had a medical need. This is reflected in the fact that a few months later she moved to a property without a bath. In addition, someone’s wish for security of tenure is not a housing need as stated in the policy. Ms X could apply under the new policy if she has not already done so.
We are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
Final decision
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman