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. Mr X complained about the Council giving his housing application insufficient priority. He says its allocation policy to place all applicants who are overcrowded in the same priority banding is unfair.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he is currently placed in Band 2A on the waiting list and that he should have higher priority. He is overcrowded and complained about the Council’s allocations policy which gives the same banding category to all overcrowded applicants regardless of the severity.
6. The Council says that although applicants are placed in the same banding , they are eligible for different sizes of vacancies and are graded according to accommodation needs and time on the list. The higher bandings are reserved for applicants with higher needs such as medical, social, emergency or priority groups.
7. Since the Localism Act 2011 came into force councils have been able to devise their own housing allocation schemes. They are required to give reasonable preference to certain groups of applicants and, as an applicant who is affected by overcrowding, Mr X is eligible for the list. How the Council groups its applicants is for it to decide and the scheme is not dissimilar to other schemes operated by other authorities. Mr X does not meet the threshold for higher banding priority.
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. 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.
10. Mr X also raised concerns about delays in processing a Freedom of Information request and problems with his council accommodation. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner and the Housing Ombudsman service with whom Mr X has made a complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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