Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council revoked his high need banding for housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council revoked his priority access to housing for himself and his child.

Mr X said his accommodation situation has caused avoidable stress and impacted his health. He said his child, who has behaviour problems would benefit from living in a house with garden.

Mr X asked the Council to reinstate his high need banding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council assessed Mr X’s property as overcrowded and unsuitable for his child and awarded him high need banding.
7. The Council made Mr X two offers of accommodation. Mr X refused them because they were in blocks of flats and he had concerns about anti-social behaviour and drug-use in the communal areas. As a result, the Council informed Mr X that it had revoked his high need banding. Mr X appealed and in its response, the Council confirmed it would not reinstate his higher banding unless Mr X’s circumstances changed.
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. When Mr X rejected two suitable housing offers, the Council acted in line with its published Housing Allocations and Lettings Policy and removed his priority banding. The evidence shows that during the subsequent appeals process, the Council considered Mr X’s reasons for refusal. While Mr X may feel strongly about the matter and may disagree with the decision made, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. 

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council revoked his high need banding for housing. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman