Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s complaint. It is reasonable for her to have her case priority reviewed by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained to the Council following its decision that her housing application was ineligible for bidding on the Housing Register. She says she has medical and mental health needs and that she should be in a higher banding which would allow her to bid on vacancies.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council in April 2023 as a single person with needs which make her current accommodation unsuitable. The Council assessed her as Band D which means she is ineligible to bid on the housing register. Miss X made a complaint to the Council and submitted medical evidence supporting her application.
6. The Council assessed her new evidence and referred her to its independent medical advisor. The decision on her banding remained unchanged and this was sent to her in a final Stage 2 complaint decision. She was advised that she could ask for a banding review within 21 days if she disagreed.
7. Councils are required under section 166A(9)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 to consider requests for review of housing priority. In this case the Council handled Miss X’s requests for a reassessment as formal complaints and did not initially refer to her right of a statutory review under the Housing Act. Normally such requests would be treated as a review request and information about the statutory procedure given.
8. It is not clear that Miss X was made aware of the statutory review process and so she should be able to have her request properly considered as a formal review. The Council will then be able to inform her of its decision on her priority within the 8 weeks timescale for this procedure. It is not our role to question the merits of any review outcome if the correct procedure is followed.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s complaint. It is reasonable for her to have her case priority reviewed by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman