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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says he was awarded Band B priority when he lived at a previous address but since he was rehoused in 2021 his latest application has only been awarded Band C priority. He says his medical conditions have not changed and he should receive the same priority as he did on his previous application.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was previously on the Council’s housing list with an award for Band B which he says reflected his medical need to move to a quieter location from near the busy road which was affecting his medical condition. In 2021 he was offered a tenancy by the Council. He viewed the property and accepted the tenancy.
6. In 2022 he applied to the Council to be rehoused because he says the road outside it has become as much of a noise problem as his previous home. The Council assessed his application and awarded him Band C for lower medical priority. Mr X asked for the case to be reviewed because his medical condition was unchanged.
7. The Council review concluded that the banding was correct. It does not believe he warrants higher medical priority given that the property offered him was accepted as being more suitable and that it does not consider his complaint that he is unable to sit in the garden for traffic noise is sufficient to warrant higher medical needs status. His new application is from a different location and it does not mean the outcome would be the same as the previous one.
8. Mr X complained that the reviewing officer was the same officer who carried out the review on his previous application which awarded him Band B and should have been a different officer. There is no evidence of fault in the procedure. The reviewing officer considers bandings awarded by the initial assessors. His role is to determine if the initial award is correct and the fact that he considered a previous application under different circumstances is not a relevant factor.
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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr 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