Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council decision not to assign further priority to Mrs X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council assessed the application. The brief suspension of the application did not disadvantage Mrs X significantly.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives in overcrowded private accommodation and has been on the Council’s housing list for several years.
2. Mrs X complained that the Council wrongly did not give her application more priority, therefore prolonging her wait for housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. The Ombudsman 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.
5. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published allocations scheme.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s responses to her complaint.
7. I considered the Council’s published allocations scheme.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs X says the Council has moved her from eighth to tenth position in the housing queue. The Council has accepted this and explained that positions can change due to the changing number and priority of other applicants. I see no evidence of fault by the Council here.
10. The Council also explained the justification for Mrs X being in Band B on the housing list, not Band A as Mrs X wants. I am satisfied that this is follows the Council's allocation scheme, and the Council has accounted for Mrs X’s circumstances.
11. Mrs X has been on the list for several years without an offer of housing. The Council’s allocation scheme does not give applicants more priority over time. I am satisfied the Council has followed its policy here.
12. The Council temporarily removed Mrs X’s application from the queue. This was for a short time. The Council accepts this and has told Mrs X that it has corrected the error and still recognises her long-standing application. Given the briefness of the error, that priority is not accrued by continuous time on the scheme, and the scarcity of suitable housing, it is unlikely that the error would have caused significant injustice.
13. Mrs X has told the Council that her accommodation has mould. The Council has advised Mrs X on how to contact the Council’s private housing team, and it could consider any report from that team as part of her housing application.
14. 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 correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the priority given to the housing application. The fault in temporarily removing the application did not cause Mrs X significant enough injustice for us to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman