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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application and the reviews which it held. She says information which she submitted with her requests was either not considered or has been ignored. She believes she should have Band A medical priority for being rehoused instead of Band B which she has been awarded.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 the information provided by the complainant and the Council. 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 asked the Council to review her housing application banding in July 2023 when she was in Band C. She says she needs to move because she requires an operation and her current home is not suitable for her medical condition. The review was carried out in September but she asked the Council in August for an extension of 2 weeks to provide further supporting information. The review did not change her banding.
6. Miss X challenged the outcome because she believes not all the additional information was considered. The Council accepted that it should have asked for a new opinion from its medical advisor and it then did so and gave her a new banding within a week of the original review date. She was now placed in Band B urgent which is the highest banding for her circumstances.
7. Since that time Miss X has made two further review requests and a formal complaint to the Council. The reviews concluded that even with the latest medical information about her condition, her banding is unchanged from Band B. Miss X believes she should qualify for Band A on medical grounds but this category is reserved for applicants with life-threatening conditions or requiring emergency health moves. The Council says she does not meet the high threshold for Band A medical priority.
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. Miss X is clearly unhappy with her banding but the Council’s reviews have concluded that she does not meet the threshold for Band A on medical grounds. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published allocations policy. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman