Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not dealt properly with a review about his housing application. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his housing application and review.
2. Mr X says he should have been offered appropriate housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I spoke to Mr X’s representative about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
5. Mr X and the Council 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

Law, guidance and policies

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. Councils must notify applicants in writing and give reasons if the applicant is not eligible for an allocation.
8. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:
• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker.
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.
10. 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.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy

11. Those who are assessed as lacking one bedroom will not normally be included on the Housing Register unless they are existing social housing tenants and their landlords have agreed to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the Council.
12. Medical priority is not awarded solely on the existence of a health problem. It is normally only awarded in instances where the health of an applicant or a member of their household is made significantly worse by their accommodation to such a degree that the circumstances have, or are likely to become, life threatening and would be demonstrably improved by a move to alternative accommodation.
13. The decision not to assess an application on medical grounds or not to award a priority does not in itself mean that an applicant or a member of their household does not have a health problem.

What happened?

14. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
15. Mr X made a housing application in January 2022 along with his partner.
16. The Council decided that Mr X and his partner were not eligible to be included on the housing register.
17. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision. After a number of delays, the Council completed its review in July 2023.

Analysis

18. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
19. I have reviewed information provided by Mr X about his and his partner’s medical circumstances, including his housing application, GP letter, other emails and letters detailing Mr X’s medical circumstances and the impact on his health of his housing.
20. Mr X’s housing association does not have a reciprocal agreement with the Council. The Council therefore acted in accordance with its allocations policy when it considered Mr X’s housing requirements.
21. The Council’s review decision outlines the medical information that it took into account when making its decision. The Council took into account all the information referred to in paragraph 19 above. The Council’s review response shows it acted in accordance with its allocations policy when it considered Mr X’s and his partner’s medical circumstances.
22. Although Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. The evidence shows that it was taken in accordance with the published allocations policy. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have not found fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman