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. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing transfer application. She says she does not want the recommendation that she is suitable only to be considered for properties without internal stairs to apply to her priority 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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 allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council for a housing transfer from her existing council flat in early 2023. She was awarded a low banding priority and in May she asked the Council to consider a medical assessment for her and her children’s medical needs which she says make her current home unsuitable. The assessment was not considered sufficient to warrant a medical housing priority under the Council’s policy.
6. Miss X complained to the Council in November about her low banding priority even though her family had medical needs. The Council re-assessed her medical needs and she was awarded band 2 priority for a high medical need which is the highest medical banding. However, the medical recommendation was that she should not be offered any properties with internal stairs due to her high mobility needs. This means that she is limited to bidding on properties with level internal layout.
7. Miss X complained about the restriction on property vacancy eligibility because it reduces her chances of bidding successfully. The Council said that the priority banding was based on her housing needs and that she could not expect to retain a higher banding and be offered properties which were unsuitable for her identified housing needs.
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.

Miss X told the Council she had medical needs and wanted to be considered for a higher banding. The priority award was based on recommendations by medical housing professionals including an Occupational Therapist. It would not be reasonable to expect the Council to offer Miss X a property which was unsuitable for her housing needs regardless of how many vacancies occur for other suitable properties.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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