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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council not making her an offer of a house during her stay in temporary accommodation and its subsequent decision that she is only eligible to bid on level access flats or maisonettes.

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 and the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X was accepted as a homeless applicant by the Council in 2021 and accepted accommodation in a women’s refuge. In February she was informed that she was no longer eligible to bid on or be made a direct offer for house because her daughter was 17 years old and the allocations policy limits allocations of houses to applicants with children under 16 and receiving child benefit.
7. Miss X asked for a review of her medical priority as she was only in the homeless banding on the waiting list. She also asked for a review of the Council’s policy on allocating houses. The Council processed her review request for her medical assessment but told her that there is no review of the policy itself which is a published policy approved by the Council.
8. The medical reassessment confirmed that Miss X had sufficient mobility needs to make her eligible for offers of ground level access flats or properties without stairs served by a lift. Miss X says she should have been allowed to bid on adapted access houses but the policy on children does not permit this in her case.
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
10. The Council says its policy covers the requirements for protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Miss X’s disabled needs can be met by allocating a suitable property for her disability but her family make-up is ineligible for consideration of houses.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman