Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. There was no fault in the Council giving Miss X’s housing application Band D priority.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council put her housing application in too low a priority band. She states she will therefore wait for longer than she should for social housing closer to her support network in the Council’s area.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council must deal with social housing applications in line with its housing allocations scheme. The scheme prioritises applications by awarding points for categories of housing need and putting applications into bands (Band A has highest priority, Band D lowest). The band is usually, but not always, determined by the number of points the application has. Paragraphs 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 of the Council’s scheme mean in certain circumstances the Council gives lower priority (lower banding) than an application’s number of points would normally attract.
6. One of those circumstances is where the applicant has not lived in the Council’s area for the previous three years. The scheme says those applications should be in Band D. That applies in Miss X’s case. The Council gave Miss X’s application 50 points. If Miss X had been living in the Council’s area for the previous three years, having 50 points would have meant her application would have been in Band C. As Miss X did not meet the residency requirement, the Council gave Band D priority, in line with its scheme. The Council considered whether there were grounds to make an exception and concluded there were not.
7. Giving Miss X’s application Band D priority was in line with the Council’s scheme. The Council was not at fault.
8. Miss X cites a part of a Council webpage that states, “The number of points you receive will determine your priority band for re-housing….” and then states Band C is for applications with 50 to 149 points. However, the same webpage also says people who have not been resident in the borough for three years immediately before applying will have lower priority. I can understand why Miss X might have thought 50 points automatically meant Band C if she only looked at the part of webpage setting out point numbers and bands and did not read the scheme the Council provided a link to. Miss X’s expectations might have been raised, but that is not significant enough in itself to warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there was no fault in the Council putting her application in Band D.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman