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 assessment of her housing application. She says it should have given medical priority to her son’s medical needs which it has rejected.

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 an organisation’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 the Council should give her housing application higher priority because her son has medical needs due to problems with his mobility. She applied for a review of her application and submitted a medical assessment form and evidence of her son’s condition.
7. The Council told her that her son’s needs were not sufficient to warrant medical priority because his condition does not yet affect his mobility in her current home due to his young age. Her other son requires additional space due to autism but the Council says she is not sufficiently overcrowded because her home has a separate living room which is included in sleeping space under overcrowding legislation.
8. The Council says her application is currently in Band C because she is at present being considered under homeless legislation following her landlord serving a notice to quit. Once her case has been decided it is likely her Banding may change but there are no reasons at present to increase her priority under its Housing Allocations Policy.
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.
10. 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 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