Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to appropriately consider the complainant’s housing needs by removing her from the housing priority band. This is because it is unlikely we would find the Council to be at fault in the way it reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I refer here as Miss Z, says that the Council failed to recognise her mental health needs when it removed her application from the priority banding on its Housing Register (HR). She considers that she should be provided with an independent accommodation on medical grounds. Miss Z says that living with her family in the overcrowded flat has further negative impact on her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Miss Z, including her comments to the draft decision, and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Allocation Scheme.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Z’s application for social housing was placed in the priority banding due to her parents’ medical needs. She was advised on the bidding process and that unreasonable refusal to accept the offer would lead to her removal from the priority band.
8. In June 2021 Miss Z placed her bid and was offered the flat. She refused to view it as considered it was too far away from her parents’ flat. Following the Council’s decision to remove her application from the priority banding, during the review process the Council confirmed its original decision.
9. To determine whether we should investigate Miss Z’s complaint we are looking at the process followed by the Council rather than the merits of its decision. I established that the Council dealt with Miss Z’s housing application in accordance with its Housing Allocation Scheme. Miss Z was appropriately advised on the consequences of her actions. The Council provided reasons for its decisions at each stage of the process. The Council considered Miss Z’s reasons for the rejection of its offer but did not accept they were sufficient.
10. Miss Z’s allocation in the priority banding was due to her parents’ medical needs. Her own application for the priority on medical grounds was considered by the Council but refused.
11. In her comments to the draft decision Miss Z described her current living conditions which, in her opinion, necessitate provision of an alternative accommodation. She also mentioned her long term mental health difficulties and her pregnancy. These circumstances cannot change, however, our assessment of the Council’s handling of Miss Z’s priority allocation.
12. I cannot find any fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss Z’s housing application which would justify investigation. The Council advised on the process prior to her bidding and followed it in accordance with its Housing Allocation Scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Miss Z’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find the Council to be at fault in the way it reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman