Cambridge City Council (23 013 810)

Category : Housing > Allocations

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 13 Mar 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing priority award. She says she should be eligible for Band A priority as her household is suffering anti-social behaviour from an individual. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing priority award. She says she should be eligible for Band A priority as her household is suffering anti-social behaviour from an individual.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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))
  2. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Miss X is currently on the Council’s housing register. She has been awarded priority Band B, due to overcrowding. Miss X also considers she should be awarded Band B priority for harassment. The Council’s policy allows for Band A to be awarded where the applicant is assessed as having two or more Band B needs.
  2. Miss X has provided the Council with diary sheets detailing the incidents involving the individual she says is committing anti-social behaviour towards her and her mother. She says she feels harassed and at risk from the individual.
  3. The Council considered the diary sheets provided by Miss X and completed a banding review. The Council noted it was satisfied Miss X’s banding was correct as there was insufficient evidence to justify an award for Band B for harassment.
  4. The Council explained this was because the incidents Miss X reported relate to generalised problems with the individual, such as noise and rowdy behaviour, an incident with a delivery driver, and actions towards an animal. The Council said Miss X did not report any harassment or abuse that was targeted towards her or her mother.
  5. I have reviewed the diary sheets Miss X has provided and am satisfied most of the reported incidents refer to the general behaviour of the individual, rather than any behaviour/incidents directed specifically to Miss X or her mother.
  6. The Council’s policy notes Band B priority can be awarded to victims of harassment, violence or abuse. This details that this is awarded if the Council has identified the applicant, or a member of their household, is being subjected to harassment or other conduct causing alarm and distress that will be improved by a move to alternative accommodation.
  7. An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Ombudsman can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome, nor criticise it.
  8. In this case, the evidence shows the Council has properly considered Miss X’s evidence and provided a clear rationale as to why it is satisfied Miss X is not eligible for a Band B priority award for harassment. The Council’s decision is also in line with its policy. While I appreciate Miss X has a different view to the Council, the Council is entitled to make its decision because it has been properly considered and made.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. 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

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings