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 it has failed to give sufficient consideration to the impact of his housing situation on his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his current housing situation should warrant a higher priority on the housing register because it is affecting his mental health. He says there is only a skylight in the property so he cannot prevent daylight entering the room. He also says he has reported dampness and rodent infestations in the past. He has also reported harassment from his neighbours to the police without a successful outcome.
7. The Council advised Mr X to report his problems with disrepair and rodent problems to its private sector housing team which deals with this, but he has not done so. The Council did a medical assessment of Mr X’s mental health issues and awarded him moderate medical priority in accordance with its housing allocations policy. This gives Mr X a current Band C priority.
8. We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the applicant believes that the council should have given more priority to the application to move. It may be the case that, although they need to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need.
9. I can see nothing which indicates that Mr X’s housing application has been given the wrong banding priority

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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