Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to give their housing application sufficient priority. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall call Mr and Mrs X, complain about the Council’s failure to give them sufficient priority to be re-housed to a bigger property with level access.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr and Mrs X submitted with their complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr and Mrs X have commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr and Mrs X live in a housing association property with their nine children, two of which have a disability. They applied for housing to the Council’s housing register and it says they require a 5 or 6-bedroom property to meet their needs. The Council advised them that it has very few such properties in its area and vacancies are extremely rare. The Council says there have been no vacancies in social housing in their area in the past 6 months.
5. Mr and Mrs X had an inspection of their home by an Occupational Therapist. She completed a report and this was added to their housing application. The report said their current home is unsuitable for their needs. They were given a band M banding with additional priority for level access needs.
6. The Council advised them to seek a mutual exchange or consider moving to an area with more vacancies of larger homes. Mr and Mrs X do not wish to move because they have relatives in the area who can support them.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
8. We will not uphold a complaint if the Council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information you provided, even if you think that the Council should have given more priority to your application to move. It may be the case that, although you need to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need.
9. There is no evidence of fault which would suggest Mr and Mrs X should be placed in a higher banding

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman