Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered what priority to award Mr X’s application to its housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the priority the Council awarded his application to its housing register. He says its award of Band 3 does not accurately reflect the impact on him and his family of living in their property, which is affected by damp and mould.
2. As a result, Mr X says he and his family cannot move and remain in unhealthy housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. Mr X is a tenant of the Council. This means I cannot investigate how the Council dealt with the disrepair in the property. This has been the subject of a separate investigation by the Housing Ombudsman Service.
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I referred to relevant law and guidance and the Council’s published allocations policy.
9. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Allocations

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Emergency+ (highest priority) to Band 3 (lowest priority).
12. So far as is relevant to this complaint the Council awards:
• Band 1 to applicants whose home is subject to a closing order
• Band 2 to applicants with a significant need to move on medical or social grounds
• Band 3 to applicants who have a need to move on medical or social grounds which is not significant enough to result in Band 1 or Band 2
• Band 3 to applicants who are tenants of the Council with a child under age 12 with no access to a private garden

What happened

13. As part of his complaint about the disrepair in his property, Mr X asked the Council if he could move home. The Council told him he could apply to join the housing register.
14. The Council’s assessed Mr X’s application and awarded Band 3. This was because the family includes a child under 12 and they have no access to a private garden.
15. Mr X asked for a review of this decision. He said the priority awarded did not reflect the impact on the family of the disrepair in the property and the risk to their health from the damp and mould. Mr X also said there was no room in the property for his adult daughter to stay.
16. The Council’s review said:
• Band 3 was the correct priority for Mr X’s application.
• The Council’s allocations scheme did not allow for an award of priority because of disrepair unless the environmental health team said the property needed to be closed.
• It had referred the case to environmental health and the repairs team
• It could not award priority based on a possible risk to the family’s health in future.
• If anyone in the family developed a medical condition because of the condition of the property, it could review the priority band.
• It could not add Mr X’s older child to his application as she did not live with him full time.
• There were tips and choices which might increase Mr X’s chances of moving, which it listed.
17. An officer from environmental health inspected Mr X’s home. The inspection found several issues needing attention but these “would not render the property to be uninhabitable.”

My findings

18. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision made without fault. This means we cannot find fault with a banding decision if the Council followed the right process. We look at the Council’s decision making and consider whether it took into account all the relevant information and followed its allocations policy.
19. In this case, I find no fault with the Council’s decision on Mr X’s priority band. It must follow its published scheme. The scheme only allows for priority for disrepair if there is a closing order.
20. There was no fault in how the Council considered whether to award priority for medical reasons. The Council followed its allocations scheme when it told Mr X his adult daughter could not be part of the application.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman