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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says the current banding does not give her sufficient priority to be rehoused from her current housing association studio flat which is overcrowded.

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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says she applied to the Council’s housing list following the birth of her son. She says she has been on the list since 2018 and that her current studio flat is too small since her son became three years old. She says she understood that she would be rehoused when her son was two years old.
7. The Council says that her application is correctly assessed against its allocations scheme and that she is currently in Band B which is a high priority banding. However, there are many other applicants in the same banding in similar circumstances. It has seen no evidence that Miss X was told she would be rehoused when her son reached a certain age, and this has not been in the Council’s housing policy.
8. The Council advised Miss X to keep bidding on suitable vacancies within her banding as this is the only means to be rehoused from the allocations list.
9. 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.
10. 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. In this case Miss X is placed within the correct banding, and Band A is reserved only for emergency allocations.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss 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