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 review of his housing application following a previous investigation by the Ombudsman which recommended this action. He says the Council has still failed to give his application sufficient priority due to his medical needs.

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 complained to the Ombudsman in 2021 about the Council’s assessment of his medical needs under its housing allocations policy (case ref 20011957). We upheld part of the complaint and recommended that the Council should carry out a review of the Banding which Mr X’s application had been given. We recommended that specific attention be paid to Mr X’s mental health condition and the effect on it by his current housing.
6. The Council carried out a review and Mr X remains dissatisfied because the current banding, Band E, was unchanged by the review. The Council’s medical assessors made further comments on his condition but noted that he had not had anything more than generic treatment for his anxiety since 2018. He has not had any involvement with community mental health services or treatment involving a psychiatrist for mental illness which may add to his priority.
7. The Council is the housing authority which must assess applicants in accordance with its published allocations policy. Mr X says he needs a property with a garden to help with his condition. The Council says he is already a social housing tenant and although he is able to bid on 2 bedroom properties with a garden, there is a high demand for houses with gardens from higher priority applicants.
8. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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