Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to give his housing application higher priority due to his daughter’s medical needs. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council not allowing his housing application a higher banding due to his daughter being unable to live with him in his current accommodation. He provided some evidence of how her current housing situation affects her mental health, but the Council required more to re-assess his banding. He believes the evidence was sufficient.

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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X applied to the Council for housing because his current accommodation is unsuitable for his daughter. He says she suffers from mental health problems caused by her current housing situation in another council area. He was placed in Band 3 on the housing waiting list which he believes is too low.
5. The Council’s housing allocations scheme allows for additional priority to be given to applicants where there are medical circumstances which affect their need for rehousing. Mr X provided some evidence of appointments and photographs of his daughter’s medical symptoms to the Council. It told him that this was insufficient to meet the requirements of the allocation scheme which says that information from medical professionals involved with their care must be provided.
6. Mr X had not provided sufficient information for the Council to assess whether his application merits additional priority. When he has provided the necessary evidence, the Council will reassess his application and this may or may not result in a change to his banding.
7. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman