Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the housing priority the Council has awarded her family. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms B, complains she and her family are living in over-crowded accommodation but the Council has only awarded band D (‘Recognised Housing Need’) priority on its housing register. Ms B complains the family’s current living conditions are causing great stress, particularly to her teenage children who must share a room.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Ms B provided when she made her complaint. I have considered the Council’s housing nominations policy and I sent a draft decision to Ms B to invite comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B has explained she lives with her husband and two children in a two- bedroom property. Her children are a boy of 15 and a girl of 13. They share a room. Ms B says the family’s current housing situation is causing them great stress as her children have no privacy and it is inappropriate at their ages to be sharing a room. Ms B wants the Council to move them to a three-bedroom property.
6. Ms B’s family are in priority band D (‘Recognised Housing Need’) on the basis they are one bedroom short. They can bid for three-bedroom properties and properties that become available for transfer. But as there are three priority bands above them, Ms B is concerned the family will not be re-housed. The Council has reviewed its decision to place Ms B’s family in priority band D and decided the banding is correct.
7. While Ms B disagrees with the Council’s decision, the Ombudsman cannot review Ms B’s priority banding and can only criticise the Council if its decision was affected by fault. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault because officers have visited Ms B’s family, considered their circumstances, its housing allocations policy and the medical information provided by Ms B. The Council also referred the medical information to its independent medical adviser who decided there was overcrowding but no medical priority that applied to the family. The Council acknowledges the family needs one extra bedroom and their housing banding reflects this. The Council has also provided information to Ms B about applying for a transfer or mutual exchange of properties.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault with the way the Council has made its decision.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman