Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a home visit by the Council and its decision to reduce Ms Y’s banding following this. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains the Council:
1. asked irrelevant questions about her housing register application around whether she was jointly named on her former partner’s mortgage;
2. carried out a visit to her home to checkup on her;
3. suspended her account so she could not bid on properties; and,
4. lowered her priority banding from Band C to Band D.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Housing Nominations Policy (dated August 2015).

Back to top

My assessment

7. In November 2024, a Council Officer carried out a visit to Ms Y’s home. The Council Officer asked Ms Y whether she was jointly named on her former partner’s mortgage. Under the Council’s Nominations policy, if an applicant owns or has an interest in a property, they will not qualify to join the housing register. The Council’s officer’s actions were in line with the Nominations Policy when confirming the financial resources available to Ms Y.
8. Ms Y complains the visit took place unannounced. In its complaint response, the Council explained unannounced visits are sometimes necessary to see how applicants live without having to prepare for its assessment. In Ms Y’s case, the home visit was carried out to assess the number of bedrooms that her family had use of. This was because the Council Officer had information from Ms Y that suggested she had access to two bedrooms, instead of one. The Council’s Nomination’s Policy allows for unannounced visits, such as these, to assess an applicant’s circumstances. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
9. The Council explained to Ms Y that it briefly suspended her account while it carried out the visit and checked that Ms Y qualified to remain on its housing register. It said the suspension lasted three hours and the Officer activated the account shortly after the visit. For these reasons, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. Ms Y complains the Council ignored her child’s disability. She says the Council lowered her banding from Band C to Band D following the visit.
11. The Council previously decided Ms Y was lacking two bedrooms and awarded her Band C. But, based on the home visit and information provided in Ms Y’s applications from February 2024, the Council decided to lower Ms Y’s banding to Band D. This is because it decided Ms Y had access to two bedrooms, but had a three-bedroom need. This meant her family was lacking one bedroom. Band D was the highest band it could award. Ms Y disagrees with this decision because she says that she only has access to one bedroom, while she uses the second bedroom as a playroom for her child. But, the Council’s assessment of this room as counting towards her bedroom need is in line with its Nominations Policy.
12. Further, based on the evidence I have seen, the Council considered Ms Y’s child’s disability, but decided the conditions were not so severe or adversely affected by Ms Y’s accommodations to meet the criteria for medical priority under the higher bands of Band A or B. Rather, it considered that overcrowding was the key housing need affecting her child. This meant is could not also award Ms Y medical priority. It accepted her child needed their own room, which is why it had assessed the family as having a three-bedroom need instead of two. These decisions are in line with the Council’s Nominations Policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this part of Ms Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about a home visit by the Council and its decision to lower Ms Y’s banding following this. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman