Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s application to join the Council’s housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided she did not have a housing need on medical grounds and so did not qualify to join its housing register. Ms X said the Council also delayed carrying out the review and delayed responding to her complaints about this issue.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions have caused her significant distress and led to her missing out on housing support that she needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

Housing law, guidance and policy

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. West Northamptonshire’s November 2023 allocations scheme prioritises applicants using a banding system, with applicants in Band A assessed as having the most urgent need for a move and Band D applicants, the lowest.
8. The Council does not have a band for any applicants that do not require a move to alternative accommodation and so these applicants would not qualify to join the housing register.
9. If a council decides a person is not eligible or does not qualify for an allocation they must tell the applicant of their right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. Statutory guidance says the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker and reviews should normally be completed within eight weeks.
11. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

My findings

12. The Council updated its allocations scheme in 2024 and asked applicants to re-apply to be considered under the new scheme.
13. Ms X re-applied in October 2024. Ms X showed she was in receipt of higher rate disability benefits. However the housing application did not indicate that her current property was unsuitable for her.
14. Ms X said other information about her medical needs was provided at this time and the Council failed to consider it. The Council said the only other information it received came from a different email address to Ms X’s so it responded saying it could not add it to Ms X’s application.
15. The Council decided five months later that Ms X did not meet the criteria in any of its priority bands and so did not qualify to join the housing register.
16. Ms X requested a review of this decision and said the Council failed to consider her medical needs. Ms X’s application and review request showed she had several disabilities and certain care needs. Ms X said she experienced dizziness which prevented her accessing the downstairs floor of their house but no relevant medical evidence was provided in support of this. Other than on this point, Ms X did not outline why her needs could not be met in the current accommodation.
17. Ms X also raised a complaint about the Council’s decision but the Council redirected her to its review process, as this was the appropriate procedure to follow at that time.
18. The Council took a further eleven months to carry out its review. This is significantly longer than the eight weeks recommended in the statutory guidance and the Council apologised to Ms X for this.
19. Aside from the delay, the Council’s review decision was carried out in line with the relevant law and guidance. It explained its decision clearly, it did not dispute that Ms X had disabilities but said it could see no evidence to show how her current accommodation was unsuitable to meet these needs. As a result, it said she did not meet the criteria to join the housing register in any of its priority bands.
20. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide enough information and evidence in support of their applications and review requests. The Council considered the information provided and decided Ms X did not meet the criteria to join its housing register. The Council explained its reasons and its decision was in line with its published allocations scheme in force at the time. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation in this case, so we will not investigate this decision further.
21. There were delays in this case. These delays did not lead to Ms X missing out on housing support as the delayed decisions found she did not qualify for this. However they will have caused her frustration and uncertainty. The Council has apologised and that is appropriate to remedy the injustice caused. I have therefore not investigated this part of the complaint further.
22. If Ms X has further evidence that demonstrates she has a medical need to move, Ms X can provide this to the Council and apply again to join the housing register. We also note Ms X has outlined several care needs and it is open to Ms X to ask the Council’s adult social care department to assess her needs and any support she may require to meet them.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault that would justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman