Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate her complaints about her tenancy or the management of her neighbours’ tenancies because we cannot investigate the actions of social housing landlords.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says it should have recognised her medical condition as a disability and awarded her medical priority. She also complained about the actions of her landlord in managing other tenants’ behaviour and refusing to change the status of her tenancy.

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 law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X says the Council assessed her housing application and gave her no medical priority after it referred the case to its medical assessors. She says she suffers from mental health problems related to her tenancy with a social housing trust and that she needs to move to escape neighbours who are causing her condition.
8. The Council told her that the accommodation she is occupying is suitable for her housing needs and that she does not merit higher priority under its housing allocations scheme. Miss X asked for a review of the decision and the Council made a further referral but the outcome of this was unchanged.
9. We may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.
10. Miss X says that the Council ignored its responsibilities to her under the Equality Act and claims it should recognise her condition as a disability. The Council considered her situation but says it does not believe the provisions of the Act apply in this case. We cannot determine whether a council has breached the legislation. Only the courts can decide this, and Miss X has already served a pre-action protocol letter indicating she is prepared to seek a court remedy.
11. We have no authority to consider the actions of her landlord with regard to the status of her tenancy or the management of its other tenants about whom Miss X has complained to it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We cannot investigate her complaints about her tenancy or the management of her neighbours’ tenancies because we cannot investigate the actions of social housing landlords.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman