Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council will not allow her to bid for a house. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions to justify investigating this complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained that the Council gave her housing application B1 priority but will not allow her to bid for a house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.(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 information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mrs B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Every local housing authority must publish a housing allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. 
8. The Council runs an allocations scheme which enables housing applicants it has accepted on the Housing Register to bid for available properties.
9. One of the issues Mrs B raised with us is about part of the Council’s allocation policy. The policy says the Council will only automatically consider its own tenants who are in priority groups and already living in houses for rehousing in houses. So it considers applicants in other priority groups for flats or maisonettes. Mrs B said this is unfair because there are significantly more houses of a suitable size becoming available rather than flats and maisonettes.
10. It is for each council, not us, to decide which groups of applicants can bid for each type of property. Councils have wide discretion when deciding how their allocation scheme will operate.
11. We will not find fault with a council’s assessment of an applicant’s housing needs if it was done in accordance with its published housing allocations scheme.
12. The Council has given Mrs B’s application band B1 priority for flats or maisonettes because of her son’s need for his own bedroom. But she has explained her husband’s conditions are made worse living in a flat in close proximity to a high number of other residents. She asked the Council to allow her to bid for houses using her priority banding. She has provided written support for her request.
13. Mrs B said the Council has failed to award priority to her application on the basis of her husband’s medical needs. But the Council has already agreed to place the application in band B1 priority. Had it agreed priority because of Mrs B’s husband’s medical needs, this would make no difference to the priority banding of her application.
14. After considering the advice its medical advisor provided, the Council turned down Mrs B’s request to become eligible to bid for houses. She appealed against that decision. The Council’s case review panel considered her appeal in 2019 and a further appeal in 2020. The panel considered Mrs B’s reasons for appealing, the evidence she provided, the medical evidence and the advice its medical advisor had provided. It did not find grounds for acting outside its allocation policy.
15. Mrs B has clearly explained her reasons for wanting to bid for a house. But we are not an appeal body with powers to substitute our own decision for that of the Council. It is not for us to decide whether there are justifiable grounds for the Council to act outside its allocation policy. When considering Mrs B’s appeals the Council considered all the relevant information, including the information about her husband. So there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decisions to justify investigating this complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman