Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly consider his housing application and his current banding on the waiting list. We will 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’s decision to place his housing application in a banding which he says does not reflect his medical needs for rehousing and discriminated against his medical health circumstances.

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)

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 been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register after being served with a notice for possession by his landlords. He provided medical details about himself and his son who are both disabled. He challenged the Council’s banding of his application because he says it did not properly consider the medical needs.
6. Mr X sought a review of the banding and his solicitor provided further medical evidence which was sent to the Council’s medical assessors. He says his application should be in a high band A, not band C. After being considered by two medical assessor and reviewed by two council officers, one of whom was independent of the housing authority, the Council says his application should remain in Band C along with several other families in similar circumstances. Mr X’s solicitors have served a pre-action letter on the Council saying they will pursue the matter to judicial review if this remains the case.
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. In this case the application has been assessed by medical officers and reviewed by the housing authority which considers the case to be Band C. since he complained to us Mr X has moved to interim homeless accommodation following the ending of his tenancy. This was not part of the complaint submitted to us in March 2021 and it is unclear if this will affect his status on the housing register.

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