Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application since 2016. This has been subject to an earlier complaint which was considered and decided in 2024. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the outcome of a recent review which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application since 2016. He says he made enquiries and complaints about the banding from 2020 and that his application was suspended from 2016 to 2023. He also complained that a review of his case in 2024 gave him only a limited offer of accommodation on a higher banding under a discretionary management offer.

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’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council has not properly assessed his complaint since 2016 when it was suspended until 2023. He says he should have been in a higher category but did not have any opportunity to make bids because his application was suspended. This part of the complaint was the subject of a previous complaint to us ref. 23 015 931and we cannot consider the same matter further.
6. Mr X also complained to us about the Council’s review of his application in 2024. The review determined that it is not possible to decide if his application should have been given a higher banding during the suspension period or if it should have been re-instated earlier given the passage of time. it decided to offer him a discretionary management transfer on a higher banding when his application was re-instated.
7. The offer was conditional on him accepting any offer under that banding and would revert to the original lower banding if he refused. Mr X accepted an offer made to him in September 2014 as a management move. These offers are discretionary moves and are not allocations under the normal allocation policy under the Housing Act 1996. Part 6 which are the allocations within our jurisdiction.
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 Council carried out a review following Mr X’s original complaint to us and the outcome was that a management offer was applied to his application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application since 2016. This has been subject to an earlier complaint which was considered and decided in 2024. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the outcome of a recent review which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman