Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the points awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate complaints about the Council’s actions as social landlord.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to award appropriate priority on its housing register for medical needs and the impact of anti-social behaviour (ASB). He said the Council had down-played his partner’s mental health struggles, despite him having provided evidence she suffered from depression and suicidal thoughts. He also complained the Council had agreed to carry out a hazard assessment, which could have given them an additional 30 points, but it had not done so. And he said it had refused to install cameras on nearby lampposts to address the ASB, although it had done so to address fly tipping.
2. Mr X said the whole family have been significantly affected by the ASB. He said his partner’s mental health had deteriorated to the point she has considered suicide, and his son is unable to socialise as he does not feel safe.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

9. Mr X says he has been on the Council’s housing register for 12 years. The Council awarded 10 points for medical needs in 2021. It reviewed the application in August 2023 after Mr X provided further medical evidence, including requesting advice from its medical adviser. Its decision letter shows it considered Mr X’s medical conditions, his partner’s mental health and his son’s autism. It decided the application did not meet the criteria for additional priority.
10. The Council carried out a further review in December 2023 after Mr X provided fresh medical evidence. Again, it consulted its medical adviser, who said that the evidence did not indicate a significant change in his partner’s medical condition and therefore 10 medical points was appropriate. In its decision in January 2024, the Council recognised the difficulties with Mr X’s current housing, but said these were not predominantly medical.
11. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for any distress caused by the language used by its medical adviser, which was quoted verbatim in its decision letter as part of the rationale for its decision.
12. In April 2024, the Council considered a referral for 25 points for social need to reflect the impact of the ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB) that Mr X had been reporting since at least December 2023, and this was awarded. However, the Council’s allocations scheme says applications can only be awarded medical or social needs points, whichever is higher. This means the 10 medical points are not included in the total number of points awarded for Mr X’s application.
13. In its complaint response, the Council explained that serious hazard points would only be awarded where a category 1 hazard was identified. It did not consider Mr X’s concerns about fly tipping met the criteria. Further, it said its inspection of Mr X’s property in 2019 had confirmed his kitchen met its lettable standard and it did not accept the kitchen design amounted to a serious hazard. The Council has provided us with a summary of a housing health and housing assessment it carried out in July 2024, which did not identify any category 1 hazards.

My assessment

14. Mr X is a Council tenant and lives in a property managed by an arms-length management organisation. We cannot investigate complaints about the Council’s actions as a social landlord. Therefore, we cannot consider Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to install a CCTV camera to address ASB.
15. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Mr X complained to us on 2 December 2024 about events from July 2023 onwards. I have decided to consider the whole period, even though part of it is late, because the issues are ongoing, and Mr X has been consistently pursuing the Council to resolve them.
16. We are not an appeal body. Unless there is fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says a council must allocate social housing in line with its published allocations scheme.
17. The Council considered the household’s medical conditions and made decisions in August 2023 and January 2024. The decision letters indicate it considered all relevant medical information, the advice of its medical adviser and its published allocations scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding 10 medical points were appropriate and there was no undue delay in making its decisions.
18. The Council considered a referral for social need points in April 2024 and awarded 25 points. This decision is in line with the Council’s published allocations scheme and, in his complaint on 23 September, Mr X acknowledged this reflected the severity of the ASB the family had endured. I have not seen evidence the Council explained to Mr X that its scheme did not permit it to add the 25 social need points to the medical points already awarded, but its approach was in line with its published scheme. The Council has provided evidence it has awarded 25 social needs points to the application.
19. There is no evidence of category 1 hazards to justify additional points being awarded on that ground.
20. Based on the above, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation so we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the points awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate any concerns about the Councils actions as social landlord.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman