Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and the Council has reviewed and increased her priority so we could achieve nothing more by investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision that her housing application banding should remain in Band 1B. She says her circumstances warrant a move to Band 1A.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
4. 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 Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X.
6. I considered the Council’s Allocation Scheme.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X complained the Council did not initially change her allocation banding from 1B to 1A, based on the mental and physical health impact of her family living where they are.
9. The Council considered Ms X’s application and supporting medical evidence as well as advice from an independent medical advisor.
10. The Council explained its Allocations Scheme says it will only give priority on health grounds where someone in the household has a severe long-term limiting illness, or a permanent and substantial disability AND their health or quality of life is severely affected by the home they live in.
11. On this basis, the Council reached a decision that the banding was correct as it was. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way it reached that decision to warrant us investigating.
12. However, the Council has since agreed to place Ms X on Band 1A for a limited period. This will give Ms X the highest priority, the chance to bid successfully for suitable housing, and to receive one direct offer of suitable housing if she does not receive one by bidding. Ms X will retain Band 1Aa priority, subject to three-monthly review, if the Council is unable to offer her suitable housing.
13. The Council’s decision is in accordance with its allocation scheme. There is also an option for the Council to extend the period if accommodation is not secured in a month. We could achieve no more than this by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and we could not in any event achieve more than the Council has now offered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman