Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains about her priority on the housing register. She wants the Council to increase her banding and provide a larger home.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, medical evidence and photographs. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mrs X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s allocation policy says that people who need another bedroom will be placed in band C. The Council can award medical priority if someone’s accommodation is having a significant impact on the health of someone in the household.
6. Mrs X lives with her husband and two children in a two bedroom flat. She is in band C on the housing register and is registered for a three bedroom home.
7. Mrs X started a housing application in 2014 but she did not complete it until 2016.
8. The Council made a mistake in 2016 and wrongly decided the second bedroom was too small to count as a bedroom. The Council placed Mrs X in a slightly higher band to reflect this. In 2017 the Council realised it had made a mistake and told Mrs X it had placed her back in band C because the second bedroom is large enough to count.
9. Ms X recently asked the Council to award medical priority because the overcrowded conditions have a negative impact on her mental health and on the well-being of the family.
10. The Council confirmed band C is correct because Mrs X needs another bedroom. It considered her medical evidence but decided not to award medical priority. The Council noted the problems Mrs X faces are due to overcrowding which is already recognised in the band C award. The Council also noted Mrs X has a history of mental health needs but it was aware her health has improved and she has been discharged from secondary mental health services. Mrs X says she was automatically discharged from secondary services after two years and her GP supports her rehousing application.
11. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Band C is the correct band for a family needing another bedroom. I have checked the room sizes and the Council was correct in 2017 to say Mrs X has two bedrooms and was correct to move her back to band C.
12. The Council considered Mrs X’s medical evidence but decided not to award medical priority. We are not an appeal body and have no power to change a council’s decision or tell a council it must award priority. We can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision and, in this case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to warrant an investigation. I appreciate Mrs X needs a larger home but the issue is the shortage of social housing rather than fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman