Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application and the suitability of her current temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says her daughter has difficulty with stairs and she is currently in temporary accommodation which has two flights of stairs and is unsuitable. She wants the Council to reconsider her housing application banding and give her higher priority for rehousing.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

(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. Miss X says she was placed in temporary accommodation which does not meet her daughter’s needs because she has difficulty with stairs. She expected the Council to carry out a medical assessment of her daughter prior to being placed in the accommodation by homelessness staff. She says she needs to be rehoused in a house with only one flight of stairs and her application should receive a higher banding because of this.
7. The Council says the accommodation is suitable for Miss X’s family needs and that homeless staff cannot carry out medical assessments, this was initiated when the Council accepted her for the main homeless duty. It told her that following a medical assessment for her housing application, it will seek to place her in more level temporary accommodation if any becomes available.
8. Miss X could have sought a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation at the time. However, this would not have altered the current banding which her housing application has been given.
9. When the Council accepted the main housing duty for Miss X, she completed an application and the Council referred her daughter’s needs to an independent medical assessor. The medical assessment gave priority for housing in property with no more than two floors or any floor level if there was lift access to it. Miss X believes she should have a higher banding but the assessment is appropriate for her needs and she has been bidding on houses with two floors since the assessment.
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. 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

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application and the suitability of her current temporary accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman