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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her application to the housing register. She says it did not give proper consideration to her daughter’s health issues and suggested that she should use her living room as sleeping accommodation to reduce overcrowding.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 scheme.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council for housing. She lives in a 2-bedroom private-rented flat which she says is very small. She also says the property has some disrepair and has mould visible. The Council originally gave her application no priority because it considered she was adequately housed with two bedrooms and two small children.
6. Miss X asked for a medical assessment priority because one of her children has a need to use medical equipment for a hearing disability. The Council’s medical officer awarded a low medical priority of 50 points for her daughter on the basis that extra space would be beneficial although the equipment batteries could be practically stored in drawers. She suggested that Miss X could alter her sleeping use of the rooms to provide a bigger bedroom space for her children.
7. When Miss X’s third child was born the Council accepted that she was one bedroom short but this did not qualify for additional priority under the allocations scheme. Because Miss X has only 50 points, she is not eligible to bid under the choice-base lettings scheme because the policy has a minimum level of 100 points for eligibility.
8. The Council sent its private sector enforcement team to inspect Miss X’s home in 2023 following her report of mould and disrepair. It concluded that the mould was mostly due to poor air circulation because of the large number of belongings and identified no significant hazards which may warrant enforcement. It arranged with the landlord to deal with treatment of the surface mould and advised Miss X to make contact if the problem re-appeared.
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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Miss X’s application has been given insufficient consideration.

Back to top

Final decision

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