Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reviewed her application which would warrant an investigation. Also we do not consider she has suffered a significant personal injustice from any delay in the review as the Council backdated her new priority banding to the date of her original application.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s assessment of her housing application.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. Miss X currently lives in a three-bedroom property with her four children. She entered the housing register and was initially awarded a priority band of three. Miss X requested several reviews of her housing priority due to the family’s medical needs and overcrowding.
6. The Council confirms a review has taken place and the family have now been awarded a band two priority backdated to the original application date.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. I have seen no evidence of fault in the procedure which would suggest that Miss X should be placed in a higher banding. The Council considered the supporting information available at the time of each decision.
10. I recognise waiting for the review caused Miss X some stress. However, the Council has backdated the priority award so there has been no significant injustice suffered in waiting for the review.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reviewed her housing priority banding which would warrant an investigation. Also we do not consider she has suffered a significant injustice from any delay in the review process as the Council backdated the new banding to the time of her original application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman