Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application. He says the Council failed to properly consider the information he provided regarding his medical conditions and has not awarded him the correct priority band. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing application. He says the Council failed to properly consider the information he provided regarding his children’s medical conditions. He says the Council has not awarded him the correct priority band and should move him into more suitable accommodation.

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 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))
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council operates a choice-based letting scheme which allocates housing to residents in order of priority. Mr X had been allocated Band 5.
7. Mr X provided the Council with new medical information which details his children could not share a room due to their medical needs. The Council confirmed it reviewed this medical information and decided to award Mr X Band 3. The Council explained this was due to him now being overcrowded by one as Mr X required four bedrooms but was in a three bedroom property.
8. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision and considers he should be given a higher priority band. However, the Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision if the decision has been made in line with the correct process.
9. In this case, the Council considered the medical information provided before it made its decision to increase Mr X’s priority band. While I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is no evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman