Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority band awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register. She considers she should be in band B due to her own and her children’s medical conditions. She says that, as a result of the incorrect banding, the family continue to live in housing that does not meet their needs, which is causing avoidable distress.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X lives in a two bedroom housing association property with her two children. In January 2023, she asked the Council to review her priority band on its housing register. In April 2023 the Council considered the information she provided and its reasons for deciding she was in the correct priority band. In August 2023 she complained, and the Council responded the same month. It said the application had been considered in line with its published allocations scheme. It noted Ms X had said one of the children had since received a diagnosis of autism and said it would review her priority band again if she provided evidence of this. It also suggested she may wish to use the lounge as a bedroom whilst she was waiting to be rehoused so each child could have their own room.
6. Ms X provided medical evidence and the Council carried out two further reviews. On both occasions, it explained she was already in band C because it had accepted the children needed their own rooms, which meant she was short of one bedroom. However, the additional evidence did not mean she was entitled to additional priority.
7. Ms X complained the Council had only considered the autism diagnosis and not considered the fact that one child would not allow the other to access their room. This meant she had to share with the other child. She also raised concerns that two other applicants had inappropriately been rehoused ahead of her.
8. At stage 2 of its complaints process, the Council explained it had considered all the information provided and concluded band C was correct. It apologised for not returning a phone call and for delays in responding to emails. Mrs X remained unhappy. She said she had not been treated fairly. She also said that if she used the living room as a bedroom, she would need to arrange storage of some furniture, which she could not afford to do.
9. The Council responded at stage 3 of the complaints process. It said it recognised she needed an extra bedroom and had awarded band C for this in line with its policy. The medical evidence provided did not warrant further priority. Although it accepted it was not ideal to use the living room as a bedroom, it was only a suggestion and it could not assist her financially to rearrange the space. It did not accept her complaint it had applied negative stereotyping and confirmed all its actions were in line with its published scheme. It explained that the position on the shortlist for a property she bid for depended on the priority band and the effective date (the date the application was first placed in the band).
10. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us. She said she was now sleeping in the living room so each child could have their own bedroom, but she had no bed because she could not afford one and had no privacy because the door had a glass panel in it. She said she should be in band B.
11. 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.
12. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. 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.
13. The Council accepts Ms X’s children each need to have their own bedroom because of their medical conditions. This means their current housing is short of one bedroom. It has awarded band C, based on overcrowding by one bedroom, which is in line with its published allocations scheme. Applications from those whose medical conditions were caused or made worse by their current housing would also be placed in band C. Ms X would not be eligible for band B unless she was short of two bedrooms or was owed a homelessness duty. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman