Summary: Miss X complained the Council awarded her family the wrong priority band for its housing register. We should not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained her family should have been awarded gold banding for the Council’s housing register, instead of silver. She says they meet the criteria and have support from various professionals who say it’s important they move to a three-bed house. They have been waiting almost a year to be allocated a property with their current silver banding.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss X provided when she complained.
5. I considered information from the Council, which included copies of Miss X’s appeal paperwork.
6. I considered Miss X’s comments on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss X’s family are on the housing register, which is managed on the Council’s behalf by a third party. The Council is responsible for the actions of third parties carrying out its functions on its behalf. Therefore, I refer to actions of the third party as being actions of the Council.
8. The family were awarded silver priority banding in February 2019, which is the third highest priority band. This was because the household was overcrowded, lacking one bedroom. Miss X has placed bids for several properties since then but the family have not yet moved. Miss X appealed in June 2019. She believed the family should be awarded gold priority or emergency priority for medical reasons because her daughter did not have her own bedroom, which was affecting her mental health.
9. The Council considered Miss X’s appeal and all evidence she provided. This included professional opinions which said Miss X’s daughter would benefit from her own bedroom. The Council declined Miss X’s appeal and explained the family was on the correct banding. It explained the information did not display the family’s current property was having an impact on Miss X’s daughter that would meet the criteria for a higher band and that would be alleviated by moving to a different property. It explained gold and emergency banding applied, for example, when the current property was a threat to life or limb.
10. There is nothing that leads me to believe we would find the Council at fault for how it considered Miss X’s application and appeal. Miss X disagrees with its decision, but this does not mean its decision is wrong. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions, and so we should not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman