Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision on his housing priority need. Mr X says he suffers from antisocial behaviour from his neighbour and his circumstances justify a higher housing band. Mr X says his mental health has been affected by his current accommodation. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision on his housing priority need. Mr X says he suffers from antisocial behaviour from his neighbour and his circumstances justify a higher housing band. Mr X says his mental health has been affected by his current accommodation.

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. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

What happened

8. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
9. Mr X applied to join the housing register in March 2017. He was given a band D award, which stated he was adequately housed with no housing need.
10. Mr X submitted a change of circumstances form in May 2019 with an environmental health report about the condition of the property, a noise nuisance report and a letter from the charity, MIND. The Council considered the information provided, responded to Mr X and confirmed it had not awarded any further housing priority.
11. Mr X requested a formal banding review, following the Council’s response in May 2019. The Council made further enquiries and responded in June 2019. The Council stated it had consulted with environmental health. Environmental health confirmed it was chasing the freeholder of the property for repairs. Environmental health stated it classed the remaining issues at the property as low risk which did not need work. The Council stated this did not affect Mr X’s banding. The Council’s response also stated the noise recordings previously captured did not constitute a statutory nuisance and confirmed the banding would remain the same.
12. The Council contacted Mr X in July 2021 following an enquiry from the Housing Ombudsman. The Council requested further evidence about Mr X’s mental health, other than documents already held. Mr X responded and explained his situation but did not provide any evidence. The Council sought independent medical advice. The independent medical advisor stated no medical priority applied and agreed with the Councils previous assessments.
13. The Council received correspondence from Mr X’s member of parliament in March 2022. The Council allocated an officer to meet with Mr X to discuss the issues with his accommodation. Mr X met with the officer at the end of March at the Council offices and at his home. Mr X disclosed some financial difficulties affecting his ability to secure alternative private rented accommodation. The officer offered Mr X financial support to enable him to source a different property in the private rental market. Mr X declined this support.
14. Mr X was admitted to hospital in May 2022 with a collapsed lung. Mr X wrote to the Council, after the hospital discharged him and requested emergency priority housing banding. He stated he had an anxiety attack due to his ongoing housing situation, which led to his collapsed lung and hospital admission.
15. The Council stated Mr X needed to provide significant supporting evidence to demonstrate he needed an emergency priority banding. Mr X stated he provided the evidence he had. Mr X provided another doctors letter which stated his living situation was having an impact on his mental health.
16. Mr X complained to the Council in June 2022.
17. The Council contacted Mr X in July and stated it had considered all the information provided and had sought information from an independent medical advisor. The independent assessment confirmed no medical priority applied. The Council stated Mr X would remain in band D and again offered financial support to source alternative private rented accommodation.
18. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in October 2022. The Council explained it considered all the information Mr X provided, but stated it was satisfied the housing band D was the correct decision.
19. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to move him to a new property.
20. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it had followed its policy, considered all the information provided and Mr X only qualified for a band D allocation.

My findings

21. Mr X claims his living situation caused him to have a collapsed lung and required hospital treatment. The Ombudsman cannot make a causal link between these two situations.
22. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what level of priority Mr X should have. It is the Council’s responsibility to make the banding decision. We can only consider whether the Council assessed his application correctly. We cannot criticise a Council when it has followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
23. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision, but I am satisfied the Council considered all information and relevant evidence and followed a proper decision-making process. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions.
24. I recognise Mr X is unhappy about the Council’s decision, but it is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman