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

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to consider her eligible for three bedroom properties because it says her son’s medical needs do not require a separate bedroom.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says she is living in temporary accommodation which is overcrowded and her housing application has been assessed as her needed two- bedroomed accommodation. She says one of her sons has undiagnosed autism and he needs a separate bedroom from his brother because of his condition.
7. The Council assessed her application and considered medical advice provided by Mrs X’s medical professionals and that of its own housing medical advisors. It concluded that her son’s condition was undiagnosed by medical reports but that even if his autism was confirmed, a separate bedroom was not the only means of providing suitably-sized accommodation. A review of the case did not alter this view.
8. Mrs X’s solicitors challenged the Councils decision and considered it may be unlawful, particularly in using out-sourced medical advice.
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. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made. In this case the Council followed the correct procedure and considered Mrs X’s housing needs as well as the medical advice available.
10. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
11. Mrs X’s solicitors told the Council that they may take judicial review proceedings over the lawfulness of its decision. We cannot determine points of law and Mrs X is free to seek a remedy in the courts to decide this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of 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