Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his housing register priority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to properly consider his family’s circumstances before deciding their housing register priority banding. He says their current housing is unsuitable and affecting their mental health and his wife’s ability to access the community. He wants the Council to increase his priority banding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed Mr X’s current banding and the reasons for this. It said if he wanted to challenge the banding, the correct way to do this was by asking for a review and not through the complaints process. It told him if he wished to, he could provide any medical evidence to support his case for higher priority during the review. It advised him how to request a review.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. I have reviewed the information Mr X has provided and Council’s housing allocations policy. The Council’s assessment of his current banding appears to be in line with its policy. The Council has a duty to apply its policy to all applicants to ensure transparency and a fair system for all. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making for us to investigate.
9. If Mr X feels their current banding does not account for their medical needs, it is open to him to request a review. During the review process, he can submit any further medical evidence to support his case for an increase in priority banding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and if Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision or wishes to provide further supporting evidence, it is reasonable for him to request a review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman