Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the priority band the Council awarded on its housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider the medical evidence he provided when deciding to award band C on its housing register. He said this caused anxiety and means he remains in unsuitable housing.

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.

(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 evidence to demonstrate the medical conditions he has and how his current housing affects him. The Council awarded band C.
6. Mr X set out in detail his reasons for considering he met the criteria for a higher band and provided further evidence to support this. The Council write to him to confirm it had considered all the evidence he sent it and to explain its reasons for deciding band C was appropriate. It said he had two housing needs in band C and that band B could only be awarded if he had three housing needs in band C.
7. Mr X remained unhappy. The Council considered the matter further but remained of the view band C was appropriate. It explained why he did not meet the criteria for band B.

My assessment

8. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the decision the Council made was correct. We can consider the Council’s decision-making process. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
9. The law says councils must allow social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
10. The Council has considered the medical evidence Mr X provided and its allocations scheme. It has explained its reasons for deciding band C priority is correct and that the criteria for band B were not met. It made its decisions without undue delay. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman