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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not properly considered his wife’s mental health and medical issues before deciding their housing register priority banding. And he said the appeal decision was based on assumptions. He said his wife felt ignored and the decision led to a deterioration in her mental health.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X previously complained about the Council’s priority award on its housing register. We said it was reasonable for him to ask for a review of the decision, which he has since done.
6. Mr X asked for a review in early March. He explained:
• difficulties his wife had leaving their home with their small child;
• difficulties she had with her mental and physical health;
• they had suffered some anti-social behaviour in late 2023;
• his mother was in sheltered accommodation and he provided care for her, so it would be easier if the family lived nearer to her.
7. The Council considered the issues Mr X raised and decided the application had not met the criteria for additional priority. It wrote to him to explain its decision on 30 April.
8. Mr X was unhappy with the decision and the Council considered his concerns at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. It explained its panel had considered all the issues set out in his review request and there was no further review or appeal.
9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision is correct. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
10. The Council’s records show it considered the issues Mr X raised in his review request against the criteria set out in its published allocations scheme. It did so both on the basis of each individual point and on the basis of all the issues taken together. Having done so, it decided the application had not met the criteria for additional priority. It wrote to Mr X with its decision and explained its reasons. It made its review decision within 56 days, which is the timescale we would expect.
11. We will not consider the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman