Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s application for the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider his housing register application and award the correct priority to him. Mr X says that as a result he is unable to move to the Council’s area and is living in an area that does not meet his needs. Mr X wants the Council to offer a two bedroom house to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register. The Council’s lettings policy provides applicants who do not have a priority need for housing and have not lived in the area for at least the last two years are placed in band 5. Mr X lives in another area so the Council placed him in band 5.
7. Mr X complained to the Council as he considered it should have placed him in a higher priority band. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint through its two stage complaints procedure. The Council explained Mr X did not have a local connection as he had not lived in the Council’s area for at least two years. The Council said it had reviewed Mr X’s application and it was satisfied it had placed him in the correct priority band.
8. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what priority should be awarded to Mr X. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper process when making its decision.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council reviewed Mr X’s application in response to his complaint. It explained why it placed Mr X in priority band 5 and why this was in accordance its lettings policy. So, there is insufficient evidence to of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s housing application. We therefore cannot justify an investigation of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman