• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Analysis
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment and decision of her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains she is unable to be re-housed to a bigger property under her current banding. Miss X requires a house with more space due to her daughter’s health problems. She says her family is overcrowded in the current house and that it is affecting her and her daughter’s physical and mental health. Miss X says no matter what she bids on, she is rejected and believes their housing needs are not being assessed fairly. Miss X wants to be re-housed to a bigger property.

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 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 considered the information Miss X provided with her complaint and the information the Council provided. I also considered the Council’s banding scheme which is available on its website. Miss X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

4. Miss X completed a housing application in March 2017 for her and her family to move to a larger property as the current house is overcrowded and her daughter needs a larger sized bedroom due to her medical conditions.
5. The Council’s occupational therapy team carried out an assessment. The team considered evidence from medical consultants to support Miss X’s daughter’s medical conditions, the size of the house and family.
6. The occupational therapy team recognised that the house is overcrowded and there is a need for Miss X’s daughter to have a better sized bedroom. The Council determined the family remain at the same band, but it awarded a moderate medical need to their application.
7. The Council with its occupational therapy team explored housing options with Miss X and determined that the best solution was for the family to move to a larger house.
8. Miss X expressed she would like to move within the same area so she can remain close to other family for support and close to her daughter’s school. She is reluctant to bid for houses in other areas and does not want to consider private renting due to affordability and lack of security.
9. The Council informed Miss X that the type of house Miss X and her family require is limited across the borough and does not become available often. It advised Miss X to expand her areas of choice to increase the chance of moving.
10. Miss X believes they should be placed in a higher band as they are not making progress in the current band although the Council noted Miss X had not placed many bids since June 2020. The occupational therapy team re-assessed the family’s situation and concluded the family are in the correct band. The team also contacted the daughter’s medical consultant and asked for supporting information which may prioritise their application further. The consultant’s response indicated there was no urgency over and above a moderate medical need which has already been awarded.

Back to top

Analysis

11. We will not start an investigation for the following reasons:
    • 1. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council prioritised the application appropriately in line with its banding scheme. The Council assessed Miss X’s and her family’s needs. It recognised the need for rehousing to a larger property and awarded a moderate medical priority to their application.
      2. The Council advised Miss X to widen the area of choice so there is a chance of the family moving to a better suited house. Miss X is reluctant to widen the area of choice due to family and school nearby.
      3. Miss X has not placed many bids on houses since June 2020.
      4. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome. This is because Miss X and her family are already placed in the appropriate banding with a moderate medical need. Based on the current assessment completed by the occupational therapy team, they cannot be awarded any more priority.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page