Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about housing allocations. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined his housing priority banding which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider his medical condition and award him the wrong housing priority. Mr X also complains the Council discriminated against him.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was eligible to bid on a one-bedroom property on the housing register. He was awarded points for homelessness, lack of facilities, medical need, residence, and welfare.
6. Mr X complains the Council did not award him a higher priority. He says he should have been eligible for a higher medical priority than he was awarded.
7. The Council have demonstrated they considered all Mr X’s health conditions and evidence when making their decision about his housing priority.
8. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. 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. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the process the Council followed so I cannot question their decision.
11. Mr X has since been rehoused out of shared accommodation.
12. Mr X also complains the Council discriminated against him.
13. The Council say they reviewed the communications from the housing officer to Mr X and there was no evidence of discrimination.
14. I have seen no evidence of discrimination towards Mr X. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council determined his housing priority banding which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman