Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Ms X’s housing priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council wrongly refused to increase her housing priority to enable her to successfully bid on a property. Ms X says that as a result she and her family have lived for too long in unsuitable accommodation which is overcrowded and does not meet her children’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X has been on the Council’s housing register since 2021. The Council placed Ms X in high housing need band as due to one of her children’s medical needs and overcrowding. We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Ms X’s housing application and priority between 2021 and December 2023. This complaint is late. There are no good reasons to investigate it as it was open to Ms X to make a complaint to us sooner. I have therefore considered events from January 2024.
8. In early 2024, Ms X made a complaint to the Council as she considered it should increase her housing priority to priority housing need to reflect her housing circumstances. In its response to Ms X, the Council said it had reviewed Ms X’s band and was satisfied its decision to place her in high priority band was correct. The Council said that Ms X’s child’s medical condition could not be categorised as an emergency medical need so it could not increase her priority.
9. Some months later, Ms X made a further complaint to the Council about her housing priority and the time taken to be offered a property. Ms X also asked the Council to allocate to her a property that she had identified as being empty. The Council responded and said it considered Ms X was in the correct priority band. It also said the waiting time was due to a lack of availability of three bedroom properties. The Council also explained it could not allocate the empty property to her as it had to allocate properties in accordance with its allocations scheme.
10. We are not an appeal body which means we do not take a second look at a council’s decision on an applicant’s housing priority and come to our own view. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper process when making its decision.
11. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of 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
12. The Council reviewed Ms X’s priority band in response to her complaints. In doing so, it provided a reasoned explanation for why it considered Ms X’s family’s circumstances do not warrant being placed in priority housing need band. Its decision is in accordance with its housing allocations scheme. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Ms X’s complaint.
13. Ms X considers the Council should allocate to her an empty property she has identified. Councils must allocate properties in accordance with its allocations scheme. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman