Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council had dealt with the complainant’s housing application. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained about the way the Council had dealt with her housing application, in particular, its decision she will only be eligible for a studio flat.

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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss B told us she currently lives in a flat with one bedroom. But, because of multiple serious health issues, the flat is no longer suitable for her. She said the Council has failed to contact the professionals involved in her case who would support her need for a flat with one bedroom.
7. In December 2021 the Council decided Miss B qualified for studio sized property in accordance with the criteria in its housing allocation scheme. Miss B asked for a review of that decision.
8. In its review decision the Council’s reviewer, Officer Z, confirmed he had considered all the medical information Miss B had provided to support her case and the occupational therapist’s assessment. Officer Z explained why he had concluded it was not medically essential for Miss B to live in a one-bedroomed property rather than a studio flat.
9. Councils must apply their housing allocation scheme when allocating their properties to applicants. The Council’s housing allocation scheme says it is the applicant’s responsibility to keep their application up to date and to tell the Council if anything changes. So, if the professionals working with Miss B can support her application by confirming in writing why a one-bedroomed property is medically essential, it is for Miss B to request that information and to send it to the Council. For that reason there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating Miss B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman