Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has provided her with housing which she says no longer suits her housing needs.
2. Miss Y says she regularly has falls on the stairs to and from her fourth floor flat with her disabled child in their specialised chair. She says consequently she tries not to leave her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. 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

5. I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss Y moved into the property in 2016. In 2019 she was placed in Band 2 priority for re-housing. In July 2023, she asked for her housing banding to be reviewed as she was struggling to access the property or leave the property which is on the fourth floor with her child in a specialised wheelchair.
7. The Council’s allocation policy says Band 2 priority is for those with medical needs where an applicant’s current home is highly unsuitable for them or a member of their household but is not life threatening. Band 1 medical needs within the policy are for those where an applicant is housebound, where they have a life expectancy of 12 months or less or where their health is so severely affected by the home, they are currently in that it is likely to become life threatening.
8. In October 2023, the Council reviewed Miss Y’s priority, but decided not to increase Miss Y’s housing banding. Its decision was to keep her priority at Band 2, but increasing her bedroom needs from 2 to 3 to take account of her disabled child’s needs.
9. In its decision letter, the Council explained what it has considered, including evidence provided by Miss Y in support of the review. It explained how it had made its decision based on its housing allocations policy and how it had considered its discretionary powers in Miss Y’s case.
10. While Miss Y may be unhappy with the decision the Council has made, 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.
11. In this case, the Council has considered relevant evidence and has been able to explain to Miss Y how it made its decision in line with its housing allocations policy. It has therefore made the decision properly so we would not find fault with its decision not to increase Miss Y’s banding at this time and rehouse her.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman