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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says the Council did not give sufficient priority to his medical condition and need for ground floor accommodation. He believes he should be placed in a higher banding.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocation scheme.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council for rehousing because he says his current above ground floor flat is unsuitable for his housing needs. he has a medical condition which means he is unable to use stairs without difficulty. The Council assessed his application and placed in Band 2 because of his medical needs which were assessed as moderate. Because the flat is served by a lift he is considered to be living in level accommodation.
6. Mr X asked for a review of the banding decision because he says he has no chance of bidding successfully on a bungalow with his current priority. He says he is concerned that if the lift became unserviceable he would not be able to access his home from outside or to escape in case of an emergency. The Council carried out a review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 and considered the medical evidence which he provided together with occupational therapists assessments.
7. The Council decided that his medical assessment was correct for his housing needs as it does not meet the critical or high need levels of higher bands. It confirmed to Mr X that it has to consider his current accommodation with the lift working under normal conditions. Where there is a lift and no internal stairs the housing policy considers an applicant to be in level accommodation.
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 Mr 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 fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman