Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says the Council failed to properly consider his family’s medical needs and that he should be in a higher banding because he is lacking 2 bedrooms not one as the Council has claimed.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s review of the application. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council has not given his housing application the correct priority according to its allocations policy, he says he is overcrowded and lacking two bedrooms for his family circumstances. He also says his medical evidence was not properly considered.
6. The Council assessed Mr X has living in a single room with a baby in his family’s home with other adults and sharing the room which is only single room size. It assessed him as being short of one bedroom because his child is under 1-year and does not count in statutory overcrowding or bedroom allocation. The Council accepts that he is statutorily overcrowded due to the number of persons living in the dwelling as a whole.
7. Mr X asked for a review of his case and this was carried out by the Council in June. The assessment is that he is in Band 3 and is statutorily overcrowded. Although the Council’s medical advisor considered his evidence, Mr X did not meet the threshold for medical 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. We 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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Mr X should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman