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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has wrongly removed his key work housing priority after it advertised a property without making him aware of a shared balcony, making it unsuitable for him and his young family, forcing him to decline it in 2021.
2. Mr Y says this has resulted in his priority being removed and he remains in overcrowded accommodation, affected him and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Council’s housing allocations policy, Mr Y, as a key worker, was given a higher priority banding for housing in 2021. However, Mr Y, after viewing a property he has bid on, refused the offer of accommodation. Mr Y said the property was not suitable for him and his family, for various reasons such as his pregnant wife not wanting to experience vertigo from living in a 4th floor flat and the property having a shared balcony which Mr Y said was unsafe for his family.
7. Under the Council’s policy when a person with such a priority banding rejects an offer of suitable accommodation, it can remove the priority given and re-band the application as it would be without the priority. The Council did this and Mr Y’s banding was reduced. He appealed this twice before approaching us in March 2022.
8. Mr Y then asked for the priority banding to be reinstated in October 2023, but the Council refused, referring to the reason for the banding reduction in 2021. Mr Y then approached us in 2024.
9. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
10. The Council considered Mr Y’s application and considered the accommodation to be a reasonable offer for him and his family. It did not accept the property was unsuitable for Mr Y’s family to live in. It considered Mr Y’s appeals in 2021 which were refused and it has explained to him in its correspondence its reasons and rationale for this, based on relevant criteria, including Mr Y’s family needs and the property in question and its condition. It has referred to this in its more recent complaint response, in which it said it would not reinstate Mr Y's previous priority banding.
11. As the Council properly considered and reviewed Mr Y’s banding in 2021, based on the evidence available, with reference to its housing allocations policy using its professional experience and expertise the decision not to provide Mr Y with a higher key worker priority has been made properly. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman