Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says that it has not given sufficient priority to his medical needs for ground floor accommodation.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied for rehousing from his current two-bedroom council flat in a tower block. He says he has medical needs which require ground floor accommodation and a wet room. The Council’s housing medical panel assessed his needs, and he was placed in the silver banding on the waiting list as he is under-occupying his current home. He was assessed as having accessibility needs and would require a wet room with ground floor or lift access.
6. Mr X’s banding was reduced to bronze level when the Council applied a reduction in status due to his having housing -related debts. This is part of its published housing allocations policy. Mr X has submitted four review requests for his case to be re-assessed. The Council has decided on each occasion that his priority is correct under the policy and it will not change the current banding. It has also advised Mr X to cease to apply for unsuitable vacancies which are not ground floor or lift assisted. His priority is only based on his needs for suitable accommodation.
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. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman