Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms U, says that the Council:
• Has failed to offer Ms U suitable accommodation since she applied for housing;
• Has not given Ms U priority based on her medical needs;
• Has treated Ms U unfairly when considering her housing application due to the frequency of her communications with the Council; and
• Has failed to explain the reasons why a potentially suitable property was allocated to someone else despite Ms U enquiring as to her entitlement to it.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by Ms U in support of her complaint. I have also considered the complaint responses provided by the Council.
4. I sent a draft decision to the complainant for comments and considered her comments before I made my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations policy

5. The Council’s housing allocations policy helps the Council determine priority between applicants. The Council places people in bands on the housing register and the highest band is Band A.
6. The policy says that additional priority can be awarded based on various factors, including medical issues. Additional medical priority may be removed if the applicant refuses a suitable offer of accommodation.

What happened

7. Ms U has been on the housing register since 2017 and has been awarded Band B. She currently lives in a one bedroom property with her three children. Ms U has indicated her preference to the Council for a house.
8. Ms U complains that the Council has failed to offer suitable accommodation since being on the housing register and she has not been awarded medical priority.
9. The Council responded confirming that Ms U has been awarded additional priority due to her medical needs and is registered for ground floor flats and two storey flats with a lift. The Council explained that this additional priority is not available for houses as this type of property does not address her medical needs. The Council said that Ms U had been offered a three bedroom ground floor flat which she declined because she wanted a house. It also explained that restricting herself to houses will probably result in a protracted wait on the transfer list.
10. A potentially suitable three bedroom property then became available, which Ms U says the Council allocated to someone else without telling her why. She complains that the Council has treated her unfairly when allocating this property due to the frequency of contact from her. The Council says the property that became available was offered to someone in Band A.
11. Miss U subsequently provided additional medical evidence on the need for a garden for her child’s medical needs in support of her request for a house.
12. The Council considered the medical evidence but found that a garden is not medically essential but a preference for a level access property should remain. The Council confirmed that Miss U would remain in Band B with medical priority.

Assessment

13. Ms U is unhappy about the length of time that she has been on the housing register. However, the Council has provided Ms U with reasons as to why restricting herself to houses will result in a protracted wait and has advised Ms U of the reasons why the other property was allocated to someone else. In addition, the Council offered a property that was a suitable size and met her medical needs, which she refused. An investigation is not warranted as it is unlikely that the Ombudsman will find fault in the Council’s actions. This is because the decisions are consistent with the allocations policy.
14. Ms U has suggested the Council has not given her accommodation due to the frequency of her contact with the Council. However, the evidence suggests she is still waiting either because she declined an offer or the accommodation was offered to someone with higher priority.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have decided 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