Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and the Ombudsman could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not adequately considered his medical needs in the housing allocations process, which he believes has prevented him from securing suitable housing. He says that his current accommodation is unsuitable and adversely impacts his health and he wants the Council to provide him with a suitable property.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X currently lives in a 2 bedroom property with a relative, and both have medical needs that their current accommodation does not adequately meet. So, Mr X made a joint housing application with his relative to secure better suited accommodation. Due to their medical needs, the Council awarded them the highest priority band, indicating an emergency need for housing.
6. Mr X complains that he has been unsuccessful in securing a suitable property. However, the allocations process operates on a choice-based lettings system, which requires applicants to actively bid for properties - a step the Council indicates Mr X is yet to take.
7. Mr X says that he has not yet placed a bid because he is restricted from bidding on properties with 3 bedrooms, which he believes would best suit his medical needs. The Council states that Mr X is not eligible to view or bid on properties with more than 2 bedrooms, as he and his relative form a 2 person household, and they have assessed that a 2 bedroom property will sufficiently meet his medical needs. The Council also confirm that Mr X qualifies for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), and therefore adaptations would be made to the 2 bedroom property to ensure it meets his specific requirements. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council came to its position that Mr X’s needs will be met by a 2 bedroom property, although I recognise Mr X disagrees with it. The Council have also offered to carry out improvement works on Mr X’s current property to better accommodate his needs while they wait for him to place a successful bid.
8. Mr X also says that the Council has not adequately considered his medical evidence. However, if this claim were valid and there was additional evidence to support his case, no different outcome could be achieved, as he has already been awarded the highest priority banding. The high priority need and offer of a DFG to make adaptations to a new property he chooses shows that his medical needs have been considered. Further investigation would therefore not achieve a different outcome for Mr X.
9. Mr X believes he has been discriminated against due to being unable to bid for properties in rural areas, which prevents him from viewing all available properties. However, the Council clarifies that this restriction is in line with their policy, which requires applicants to demonstrate a rural connection to be eligible to bid on properties in those locations. This policy is designed to prioritise housing for individuals who have ties to the rural community, which is not the case for Mr X. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has made its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman