Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant does not qualify for extra priority, on the housing register, as a carer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the decision that she does not qualify for priority as a carer on the housing 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 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

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered the Council’s allocations policy. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocation policy

4. The policy says that people who are full time carers for an elderly person or a disabled child can get extra priority on the housing register. They must receive carers allowance to qualify for the priority.

What happened

5. Ms X shares a room in her parents’ house with her child. She has been on the housing register since June 2018. She is a full-time carer for her mother who is 50 years old. Ms X receives carers allowance.
6. Ms X complained to the Council because it would not give her extra priority as a carer. In response the Council explained that it regards someone as elderly once they are at least 60 years old. It explained this is the age when people become eligible for sheltered housing and the age at which the NHS regards people as elderly. The Council confirmed Ms X does not qualify for the extra priority because her mother is 50 years old. The Council said it would review the wording of the policy to make the age limit clearer.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the extra priority is for carers of elderly people. The Council has explained this refers to people who are over 60. It has explained why it equates the word elderly with an age of at least 60. Ms X cares for someone who is 50 and, most people, would not regard someone of 50 as being elderly. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
8. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. He cannot intervene simple because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. If Ms X thinks all carers should get extra priority then she would need to lobby her local councillors for a change to the allocations policy. It is the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide the make-up of the policy.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman