Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his housing application. We discontinued our investigation. That is because the situation moved on. The Council took a new homelessness application for Mr X and awarded him its highest housing priority. The Ombudsman could not achieve more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his housing application because it did not give priority to his wife’s medical need for housing.
2. Mr X said this is impacting his and his wife’s health and is affecting his wife’s recovery. This means they cannot live as a family, as his wife’s children were forced to live with their father.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
5. I also considered the Council’s response along with relevant law and guidance.
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

What happened

7. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint.
8. Mr X and his wife share a one-bedroom private rented home. They made a housing application to the Council and the Council placed them in priority band two under its housing allocations scheme.
9. Mr X complained because he did not feel the Council properly considered his wife’s medical evidence. He said the Council should give his wife priority due to her medical needs, and a new home will help her recovery. He also complained about the Council’s poor communication.
10. The Council confirmed it considered Mr X’s wife medical evidence and this was why it awarded band two priority. It said if Mr X disagreed with the banding he can appeal.
11. Since Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council took a new homelessness application for him. The Council confirmed it awarded Mr X band one, which is the highest available housing priority. He is also eligible to bid on two-bedroom homes, so his wife’s children can stay overnight.

Analysis

12. I discontinued my investigation.
13. If we investigated and found the Council at fault in its consideration of Mr X’s housing application, we would likely ask the Council to review its decision and make the decision again.
14. However, the situation moved on. The Council took a new homelessness application for Mr X and awarded him its highest housing priority. He can also bid on two-bedroom homes.
15. The Ombudsman could not achieve more, and I do not wish to cause confusion by investigating the Council’s earlier decision. I also do not consider this is a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s resources.
16. The Council’s new decision comes with appeal rights if Mr X remains dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I discontinued my investigation. That is because the situation moved on. The Council took a new homelessness application for Mr X and awarded him its highest housing priority. The Ombudsman could not achieve more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman