Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not properly considered whether her family are safe in their current property when deciding the priority to award on its housing register. She also said it had not recorded details for all household members. Ms X said this delays her chance to move from unsuitable accommodation.

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X has been on the Council’s housing register since 2021. It awarded band 2 priority, which recognised there are medical needs in the family as she has a disabled child, and that the family were short of one bedroom.
6. In 2024, Ms X submitted further medical evidence and asked the Council to award band 1 priority. The Council considered the evidence and its allocations scheme, consulted its independent medical adviser and decided band 2 was appropriate in July 2024.
7. Ms X asked for a review of that decision. The Council asked Ms X and her current landlord for further information, which was provided. Further, by the time it made its review decision, in September 2024, Ms X had given birth to another child.
8. The Council considered all the information it had and its allocations scheme. Its review decision addressed the points Ms X had raised in her review request and later communications. This included the space available in her current property and how that could be used, and the difficulty of taking her disabled child and their specialist buggy up and down the stairs to the property. Although it recognised the difficulties, it explained the reasons for deciding the criteria for band 1 was not met.

My assessment

9. The law says council’s must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme. It is not our role to say whether the decisions the Council made are correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
10. In this case, the review decision indicates the Council considered the information it had about the child’s disabilities, the difficulties with the stairs and the use of the space available within the property and considered its allocations scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding the criteria for band 1 was not met. Although there was a delay in making the review decision, which should have been issued within 56 days, this was at least partly due to the need to request additional information to make that decision and did not cause a significant injustice. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman