Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application’s priority for vacancies under the allocation scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to offer her a suitable property for her needs despite being placed in Band A priority from 2022. She believes that other applicants may have been offered vacancies with less priority than her own case.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says that she has not been offered a suitable ground-floor vacancy by the Council since her application was awarded Band A priority effective from 2022. The banding priority was changed from Band B to Band A backdated following her previous complaint to us in 2024 reference 23 019 057. Since we found fault in the Council’s assessment of her priority the Council has told Ms X that no suitable vacancies have occurred which she would be eligible for an offer.
6. Ms X said in her complaint to us that she believes the Council has overlooked her case in favour of other applicants with lower priority status. She has not provided any evidence of this and has not received any from the Council.
7. After she complained to us in January 2024 she made enquiries about vacancies which she may have been eligible for under a Freedom of Information request to the Council. The Council’s response confirmed that none of the 21 vacancies in her chosen area would have been offered to her as they went to other applicants with higher banding priority, such as under-occupation or were unsuitable for her needs.
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. There is no evidence available to suggest that Ms X has been overlooked for vacancies which she could have been offered.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application’s priority for vacancies under the allocation scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman