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

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s assessment of her and her partner’s medical priority for housing. She says she should be placed in a higher banding based on both of their needs and be considered for two-bedroomed houses which could be adapted for her needs.

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. Ms X says the Council has failed to give sufficient priority to her housing application which it has placed in Band 2. She says she should have a higher priority banding and should be considered for 2-bedroom houses which could be adapted for her mobility needs. The Council originally placed her in Band 4 because she is already in a suitable social housing property. It carried out a medical assessment at Ms X’s request when she submitted evidence from her GP and her banding was increased to Band 2 for a ground floor flat.
7. Ms X says she wants to be able to bid on houses with gardens because this would benefit her partner’s mental health issues. the Council says her medical needs require level accommodation and this can be met with a ground floor flat. Her partner’s needs do not merit higher medical status.
8. Ms X says the Council could offer her a house which it could then adapt to suit her mobility problems. It has told her this would be an unsuitable use of its limited housing resources and that there is high demand for such properties from larger families with children in higher priority need. She may bid on houses with stairs but her higher banding will not apply as these are not considered to be suitable for her mobility needs.
9. 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. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Back to top

Final decision

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