Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not agreed to move the complainant’s housing application into a higher priority band. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs B, complained that the Council has not agreed to move her housing application into a higher priority band.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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))

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mrs B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Earlier this year Mrs B applied for social housing. The Council placed her application into priority Band C. Mrs B asked for a review of that decision. She explained how the incidents she and her family had experienced in their current accommodation had affected them. She provided supporting evidence from medical and other professionals.
8. In its review decision letter the Council said it had decided its original decision to award her no medical priority was incorrect. It awarded Band C medical priority. This did not change her application banding but the Council said, as she had more than one housing need, it would offer her a greater degree of priority over others who did not have multiple housing needs. The Council said, however, her application did not meet the criteria to move into Band B. The Council explained its reasons. It gave Mrs B advice on what she should do if she experienced incidents of nuisance and anti-social behaviour in future.
9. A complaint to us is not the same as an appeal against a council decision on priority for rehousing. Our role is to look at the way the Council reached its decision. We cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision if there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached it. The Council considered all of the supporting evidence Mrs B provided before reaching its decision on her review request and explained why it did not move her application into Band B. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman