Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that her priority band is incorrect, that she is only allowed to bid on flats, and that the Council admitted to giving her low priority as she does not bid enough. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her priority band is incorrect, that she is only allowed to bid on flats, and that the Council admitted to giving her low priority as she does not bid enough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council operates a choice based letting scheme. Miss X can place bids for properties which she is interested in.
7. Miss X is unhappy with the priority band she has been awarded. The Council confirmed her application has been awarded Band 2, high medical priority, due to her son’s medical needs.
8. The Council also explained there is a higher band, Band 1, emergency medical priority. This was awarded in situations where an applicant (or member of their household) was currently in hospital and cannot leave because they have no suitable accommodation elsewhere and because they require a specially adapted home. The Council confirmed Miss X did not meet the criteria for this priority as her son was not in hospital.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council’s housing allocations policy sets out the various banding priority that can be awarded. The Council has provided clear reasons for why Miss X has been awarded Band 2, high medical priority, and why she does not qualify for a higher band. The Council’s decision is in line with its policy. As there is no fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s application, we could not find fault with the decision itself.
10. Miss X also complained the Council had restricted her to only bidding on flats and that the Council had given her low priority due to her not bidding enough.
11. The Council explained that under its policy, houses advertised by the Council and a few other housing providers would only be offered to households with children under 11. However, other landlords did not follow this policy and so Miss X could bid for houses advertised by all other housing providers.
12. An investigation is not justified as there is no evidence to support Miss X’s claim the Council has restricted her to only being allowed to bid on flats. Therefore, we are not likely to find fault.
13. The Council also explained that Miss X had only made 12 bids in 31 months and that it would have expected her to have placed at least 100 bids in that time. The Council confirmed as it operated a choice-based letting scheme, Miss X could not be matched to a property if she doesn’t bid. The Council also explained to Miss X that properties were shortlisted based on preference group, band, and then priority date.
14. An investigation is not justified on this point as we are not likely to find fault. It appears Miss X may have interpreted the information that she would not be matched if she did not bid as the Council giving her low priority. However, it is clear the Council was trying to explain to Miss X that it was not going to be possible to match her to any properties if she did not bid on them. Indeed, the Council highlighted to Miss X that due to her banding and priority date, she would likely be matched to a property quickly if she were to bid more regularly. It is open to Miss X to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman