Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council awarded Miss X’s priority band for social housing because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council awarded her Band C for medical priority on its housing register when she believes it should be higher. She says the Council did not update her banding when it was first awarded and believes this may have obstructed her chances of bidding for suitable properties.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

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

3. 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)

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. Miss X was awarded Band C for overcrowding and medical need. She believes medical priority band should be higher. Miss X says she struggles with public transport and cannot commute to her medical appointments and son’s childcare provision. The Council considered Miss X’s ability to access essential facilities including social factors, psychological and physical issues. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome.
7. Miss X says the Council did not apply the Band C medical priority when it was first awarded. She believes this may have reduced her chances of bidding for suitable properties. Miss X’s overall banding was already Band C for overcrowding. Miss X’s prospects of bidding for other properties were not lowered by the medical banding being applied at a later stage. So, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman