Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has not agreed an extra bedroom for a carer when assessing his bedroom need for his housing register application. He says his overnight care needs are not being met because a carer cannot stay overnight.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. He provided a GP letter that said Mr X would like to be considered for a 2 bedroom property so a carer can stay overnight when Mr X struggled with a medical condition. The Council accepted his application. It awarded priority band 6 and said he needed one bedroom.
6. Mr X challenged that decision. He provided another GP letter which said Mr X needed an extra bedroom “for someone to stay to care for him”. The Council consulted an independent medical adviser (IMA), who said there was a lack of supporting medical evidence to support the need for an extra bedroom or medical priority. In April, the Council told Mr X it had considered the evidence provided but had not changed its view on the appropriate priority band or bedroom need.
7. Later in April, Mr X’s social landlord assessed his situation and provided a report to the Council, which stated Mr X’s medical condition had deteriorated and he needed an extra bedroom for an overnight carer. The Council considered the report and wrote to Mr X in early May. It increased Mr X’s priority to band 3. It said he needed one bedroom but could apply for “suitable 2 bed properties”. In a further email, the Council clarified that, because he did not have a family, he could bid for 2 bedroom flats or maisonettes, but not other type of property.

My assessment

8. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions are correct. We can consider how the Council made its decision but, unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations policy.
9. This Council’s allocations policy says single applicants are assessed as needing one bedroom, unless there are exceptional circumstances. When the Council first considered the number of bedrooms needed, there was no medical evidence to confirm Mr X needed an overnight carer all the time, nor to justify awarding medical priority.
10. After receiving the report from the social landlord, the Council reviewed the application, increased the priority band and allowed him to bid for certain two bedroom properties. This will allow a carer to stay overnight.
11. The records show the Council has considered the evidence provided at each stage and its allocation scheme. It has set out its decisions in writing. There is no indication it has told Mr X he can ask for a review of its decisions within 21 days if he disagreed with them, but this has not caused Mr X an injustice because he was able to challenge the initial decision and because there is no evidence to suggest he should have been awarded a higher priority band or extra bedroom prior to the social landlord sending its report. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman