Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to place him in the “standard” band for housing. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council for rehousing because of his son’s disability. The Council awarded him ‘standard’ banding because it considered him adequately housed. This band has no priority.
6. Mr X asked for a review of his banding and later provided a supporting letter from a social worker seeking silver priority banding.
7. The Council’s policy details the criteria for gold and silver banding. It awards these where:
• The applicant needs urgent rehousing due to a medical condition or disability which is severely and permanently affected by their current accommodation, or
• The applicant’s medical condition or disability seriously affects their ability to manage in their current accommodation and where a move would resolve the issue and no other remedy is available.
8. The Council reviewed the information provided and decided this did not justify priority banding. It gave Mr X clear reasons for its decision.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has shown it considered each issue raised in line with its published allocations scheme before deciding.
10. I recognise Mr X remains dissatisfied. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We cannot question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.  

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman