Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council giving her housing application insufficient priority for her needs. She says she is sharing accommodation with relatives and she has a medical condition. She wants the Council to give her a higher priority on its register.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Miss X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss X currently lives with relatives at different addresses on a temporary basis, she has a medical condition and is in the Silver banding on the Council’s waiting list. She says her insecure accommodation makes her condition worse and feels she should be in the highest medical category.
6. The Council says she does not qualify for the gold banding because this only applies to applicants with medical conditions requiring an urgent move because their current accommodation is unsuitable. The Council told Miss X that if she becomes homeless then it will offer her temporary accommodation because she has a child and would be in priority need.
7. Miss X complained about her housing assessment and the Council’s letting authority reviewed her case. It concluded that she is in the correct banding for her situation and cannot place her in a higher priority.
8. We cannot question decisions taken by a council if they were taken properly and fairly. It may be the case that, although Miss X needs to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need. We will not uphold a complaint if a council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman