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

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says her current home is overcrowded and she has concerns about a neighbour who has been convicted of stalking offences in the past. She wants the Council to give her housing application a higher banding priority.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s review of her case. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says she is living in overcrowded conditions and requires more space for her family. She has applied for a bigger home and is currently on Band B priority for being short of one bedroom under the Council’s housing allocations policy. She recently told the Council that she has found out from social media posts that her neighbour has been convicted of stalking offences in the past and has restrictions placed on him relating to individuals in other parts of the area.
6. She asked for a review of her housing banding because she feels that she is no longer safe and that she needs to move more urgently. The Council reviewed her case and decided that there is insufficient evidence that she is under any direct threat from her neighbour with whom she has had no contact. For an applicant to meet the very high threshold for Band A status there needs to be a credible threat to safety and this would need corroboration by the police. At present there is no evidence that she is under greater risk than anyone else in the neighbourhood.
7. 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
8. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. In this case Miss X has had a review of her application under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 and the Council considered the banding to be correct.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman