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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s priority banding awarded for her housing transfer application. She says it did not give sufficient priority to her family’s medical needs and that she should be given a higher banding for severe medical reasons.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council did not properly consider her housing transfer application. She says she is overcrowded and her son has a condition which requires him to have a separate bedroom. Miss X also says she suffered from mobility problems and has an undiagnosed phobia about using lifts. She currently lives in a 2-bedroom flat and says she needs a 3-bedroom property.
6. The Council assessed her application and awarded her Band 3 due to being overcrowded by lacking one bedroom and having a low income. It did not award any medical priority because it says miss X’s medical needs are met by treatment and the flat is on a level basis for her mobility needs. It considered that her son’s medical needs would be met if the were successful in bidding on a 3-bedroom property which they are eligible for on overcrowding grounds. No additional priority is awarded where medical and overcrowding needs require the same size property.
7. Miss X was dissatisfied with the priority banding and asked for a review of the decision under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996. The Council carried out the review and considered all the evidence which Miss X provided related to her medical condition and the situation of her children. The review upheld the original banding decision.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
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 should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman