Summary: A man complained about the Council’s failure to help him with housing despite his serious medical condition and need for support from his family. But we do not have grounds to investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its assessment of the man’s housing application.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council’s failure to prioritise him for an offer of social housing in view of his serious health issues and imminent need for support from family members.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided with his complaint, his comments when we spoke on the telephone, and his further comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of the Council’s response to my enquiries about Mr X’s housing application.

Back to top

My assessment

4. By law every council must have an allocation scheme for deciding priorities, and the procedures to be followed, in allocating social housing. Councils must allocate accommodation in accordance with their allocation scheme.
5. The Council’s Allocation Policy places qualifying applicants for social housing in one of five priority bands: A, B, C, D or E, according to their housing needs.
6. The Policy also says a person who does not meet its local connection criteria will not qualify to go on the Council’s housing register unless they have a housing need. But in that case the applicant will only be placed in Band E.
7. In addition the Policy says that non-dependent children over the age of 18 may not be included as part of an applicant’s household.
8. Mr X applied to the Council because his current accommodation is becoming unsuitable in view of his deteriorating serious medical condition and need to have his wife and children living with him to provide care. Mr X said his family are currently living abroad but will join him when he has suitable accommodation.
9. The Council assessed Mr X as having a housing need, but awarded him Band E priority because he had not lived in the area for long enough. The Council also decided Mr X only had a need for a one-bedroom property because his children were all over 18 and so could not be included in his application household.
10. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. But from the information provided I consider the Council has correctly followed its Allocation Policy in dealing with Mr X’s case. Therefore I do not see we would find reason to fault it in this respect.
11. I also looked at whether the Council should have considered Mr X’s case under the homelessness legislation. By law councils should take and assess a homelessness application where they have reason to believe a person may become homeless within the next 56 days.
12. The Council said Mr X had not yet applied to it for homelessness assistance. However he currently has accommodation available to him so it does not consider he is homeless or threatened with homelessness at present.
13. As Mr X’s landlord has not given him notice to leave so far, and he does not yet have a date for his family’s arrival, I am not convinced we could say the Council was at fault for not inviting a homelessness application from him at this stage.
14. Mr X is unhappy the Council suggested he should seek private rented accommodation, which he does not see as a viable option in his circumstances. But I do not see we could fault the Council for advising about the possibility of looking for a private rented property. I also consider the Council has appropriately signposted Mr X to other agencies which may be able to help him, such as its adult social care service and the citizens advice bureau.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We do not have grounds to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to help him with housing despite his worsening health condition and need for live-in support. This is because there is not enough sign of fault by the Council regarding its assessment of his housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman