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. Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal to backdate her housing priority banding to 2019 when she says she submitted medical information about her family which was not added to her application.

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 the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says she submitted medical details about her child’s medical condition to the Council in 2019. She says this was submitted to a local office and she did not receive either a receipt or a medical questionnaire form to complete.
6. She did not contact the Council about any changes to her housing priority at the time and submitted further medical information for assessment in 2022. The Council assessed her medical information in February 2022 but the outcome did not change her banding priority.
7. Following new medical information in May 2023 the Council changed Ms X’s priority to Band 1. She complained to the Council that this should be backdated to when she submitted evidence in 2019. The Council told her that it had no records of her submitting the information or making a medical assessment request in 2019. She had not followed up any lack of response at the time and it could only apply the new evidence from when the medical review was carried out. In this case that is based on the May 2023 information.
8. The Council’s allocations policy says that changes in banding priority apply from when the new banding was decided. There is no evidence that Ms X provided information in 2019 which would have changed her banding from that time.
9. 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.
10. Ms X has also complained about the conduct of her council neighbours and repair matters in her home. The complaint has been referred to the Housing Ombudsman Service which is the body which deals with complaints about social housing landlords.

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