Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not follow the law when assessing the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council did not follow the law when assessing his housing application.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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.
5. Mr X has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision not to award reasonable preference to his housing application on medical grounds. He told us his household is overcrowded. He said his family of five lives in a one-bedroom flat. Mr X told us these conditions have a negative impact on his family mentally and physically.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s review request. In this case, after considering all the relevant information provided by Mr X, the Council decided the application did not meet its threshold for a medical award. The Council considered the information provided by Mr X. It said it did not have evidence the medical condition of a household member was worsened by their current accommodation.
8. Mr X told us the Council failed to apply section 326 of the Housing Act 1985 properly. It only included three members of Mr X’s family members in its assessment of overcrowding instead of four members. He wants the Council to award his application severely overcrowded plus (SOVP) priority.
9. In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council referred to section 325 of the Housing Act but not section 326. But this is not the reason it did not award the SOVP priority. The Council’s criteria for SOVP priority requires people to be assessed as severely overcrowded and for there to be at least one other reason for it to award reasonable preference to their application. The Council said it has awarded Mr X reasonable preference for overcrowding. This would take account of the issues overcrowding causes. But, as the Council did not award additional medical priority, he does not meet the SOVP priority criteria.
10. Our role is to look at the way councils reach their decisions. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. The Council has considered the information Mr X provided, including his supporting evidence. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision so we cannot question the judgement it reached.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman