Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. 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 following a delay in carrying out his medical review he still does not have sufficient priority to have a reasonable chance of being rehoused.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has been on the Council’s housing list since 2012 when he approached it as homeless. He complained to us about his housing assessment in 2020 in complaint reference 20 001 583. We advised him in that complaint that we could only consider matetrs from the previous 12 months before he compained to us. We closed his complaint in December 2020 but in 2021 his housing circumstances changed.
6. In March 2021 Mr X submitted a medical review request to the Council because he had obtained an assessment from an Occupational Therapist supporting his request. The Council sent the report to its independent medical assessors. Normally it receives a response within 6 weeks but I this case, due to staff shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic the response took 13 weeks due to a backlog.
7. The Council told Mr X that although the delay did not affect his housing situation due to the high demand, it recognised his dissatisfaction and paid him £35 for each week of delay. Mr X was placed in Band 2 from the date of his review, and it advised him to bid on properties from that banding. Mr X says the change to band 2 does not help his situation as many others are in it and he wants to be considered for Band 1 as his case is urgent.
8. The Council told him that his circumstances do not meet the criteria for Band 1 and that he will remain in Band 2.
9. I have read the Council’s published housing allocation scheme and it confirms that Mr X does not meet Band 1 criteria. 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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Mr X should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman