Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. This is because the Council has agreed to review Mrs X’s housing application. This is an appropriate remedy and investigation by us would not be proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision about her housing application. She says the Council did not properly consider her family’s medical needs and need for an additional bathroom. She also believes her home is statutorily overcrowded.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s decision has left her and her family in unsuitable housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s decision about her housing application. She asked the Council to review its decision, including to further consider her family’s medical needs and claimed need for an additional bathroom. She also asked the Council to consider whether her home is statutorily overcrowded. If Mrs X’s home is statutorily overcrowded, she could receive higher priority for social housing.
8. We asked the Council why it had not acted on Mrs X’s review request. The Council said there was no need to do a review because a review would not change Mrs X’s application’s priority banding on the Council’s housing register.
9. Section 166A(9)(b) and (c) of the Housing Act 1996 provides the applicant the right to request a review, not just of their application’s banding, but of ‘any decision about the facts of his case, which is likely to be, or has been, taken into account in considering whether to allocating housing accommodation to him’.
10. If we were to investigate it is likely we would find the Council at fault because it did not respond to or consider Mrs X’s review request, as the law requires.
11. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice by reviewing its decision, taking into consideration all the concerns in Mrs X’s review request about her family’s medical need and possible statutory overcrowding.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will carry out a review of Mrs X’s housing application and give her the review decision within two months of today to put things right.
13. As the Council has agreed to our proposed remedy, we will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would not be proportionate for us to investigate, having regard to any remaining injustice from the alleged fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to review Mrs X’s housing application. This is a sufficient remedy for any injustice claimed and therefore investigation by us would not be proportionate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman