Summary: Miss X complained the Council placed her family in the wrong priority band on its housing register. We will not consider this complaint because it is unlikely that investigation by us would achieve a different outcome. The Council amended the family’s priority banding through its appeals procedure, and it is unlikely we would find fault in how it came to its most recent decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council placed her family in the wrong priority band on its housing register. She believes they should be in band B rather than C, due to her son's needs.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(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 to us.
5. I considered information the Council provided, which included copies of appeal correspondence.
6. I gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss X applied for the Council’s housing register in 2019. It originally allocated her family priority band E (no priority due to having no assessed need). Miss X appealed, and the Council changed the family’s priority banding to band C (medium priority for health and welfare reasons). This was based on her son’s need for the family’s vehicle to be parked close to the house, to reduce risk.
8. I have not seen Miss X’s original housing register application, and I have not considered whether the Council failed to take account of her son’s needs in its original decision. This is because the Council has since changed the family's priority banding through its appeals procedure, putting them back in the position they would have been in but for any fault in the original decision. There is not a good reason for us to consider that first decision as any injustice caused by fault would now have been remedied.
9. There is also no indication of fault in how the Council came to its most recent decision. Miss X does not agree with the Council’s decision her family only has medium priority. She believes they should be given band B priority (high priority for health and welfare reasons). We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. There is nothing that indicates the Council did not consider Miss X’s appeal properly.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman