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

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to give their housing application sufficient priority to reflect Mr X’s medical needs. They also say the inspection of their current accommodation should have identified that it is not habitable.

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. Mr and Mrs X applied to the Council as homeless in June 2021 because they say their current private rented accommodation is unsuitable for Mr X’s serious medical condition. Their landlord served them with a Section 21 possession notice, but the Council advised him that this was invalid because it was incorrect. The landlord subsequently withdrew any possession action, and the homeless case was closed.
7. They applied to the remain on the housing register and Mr X was awarded Band B for his medical needs under the Council’s allocations policy. He asked for an assessment by an occupational therapist and after this was undertaken the priority remained Band B.
8. Mr X says the current accommodation affects his medical condition and the property is not fit for habitation. The council sent a private sector housing officer to inspect the property. He considered that it was not unfit but identified repair work which was required under the HHSRS provisions of the Housing Act 2004. The landlord has completed these works so there are no further repair matters on which the Council can act.
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. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of decisions which have been made in a proper manner. This means the Ombudsman will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr and Mrs 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