Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority given to Miss X’s housing application. Any investigation is unlikely to find fault undermining the Council’s decision-making.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not given enough priority to her housing application. She states this means she and her family will remain longer than necessary in overcrowded housing that does not meet their medical needs.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X seeks move her family to a two-bedroom property on overcrowding and medical grounds. The Council agrees Miss X needs two bedrooms. It gave her application Band C priority on the housing register for a two-bedroomed property. Miss X argued her application should have higher banding on medical grounds, so the Council reviewed the matter. The Council’s review decision said Band C was correct.
6. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether Miss X’s application should have higher priority. Our role is to consider whether the Council properly reached its decision on that point, as paragraph 2 explained.
7. The Council’s review decision letter referred to information from Miss X about her circumstances, medical information about Miss X and her family and advice the Council received from its medical adviser. The letter cited the relevant parts of the Council’s housing allocation policy. It concluded the Council did not believe Miss X’s circumstances merited higher priority.
8. The evidence suggests the Council reached that decision properly as it took account of relevant information and gave reasons for the review decision. So, while Miss X is entitled to disagree with the decision, we cannot criticise the decision, as paragraph 2 explained.
9. The Council has no duty actually to give Miss X larger social housing in any particular timescale or at all. Its duty here is just to let Miss X bid with appropriate priority for vacant social housing in line with the Council’s allocations policy. The evidence suggests it has done that.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any investigation is unlikely to find fault undermining the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman