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. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to offer her housing in the past 9 years that she has been on the housing register. She says that she understands other applicant shave been rehoused within a shorter timescale and that she has bene on the list longer than the 8 years which she was informed was the average waiting time.

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.

(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 the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says she applied for housing to the Council in 2015 and that she has been on the list longer than 8 years which se was advised it takes for someone to be offered a 2-bedroom house. She has submitted information about her medical needs over the years and has had two medical assessments in the past two years.
6. The Council told her that there is no specified period of time someone is expected to wait before receiving an offer. The waiting list changes constantly and many new applicants have been added in recent years with fewer vacancies becoming available at the same time. it also explained that an applicant’s bidding position may change from week to week depending on demand for particular vacancies. Mrs X has been prioritised for a two-bedroom property with a lift requirement if it is above ground floor. If Mrs X only bids on houses it will significantly reduce her prospects of being successful as they are fewer in number and higher in demand.
7. Mrs X says she received a latter in 20224 which incorrectly stated you was bidding on 3-bedroom properties. The Council told her that this was a typing error and that her priority has remained as being for 2-bedroom need. It apologised for any concern this caused.
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. In this case the Council has explained how the allocations system works and Mrs X is in the correct banding for her circumstances. If she has any changes in her circumstances she will need to inform the Council of this.

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.

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