Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s housing priority. Some of the complaint is late, and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has not considered his housing priority properly.
2. Mr X said the Council had not changed his priority banding despite the evidence that he had submitted to support this. Mr X said that this has had a negative effect on the wellbeing of his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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))
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Some of Mr X’s complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months before he complained to us. Mr X did not ask the Council to review their decision at the time. There are no good reasons for us to exercise our discretion to investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s housing priority and decided that he would remain in Band B, to recognise medical grounds and Community Contribution.
10. Mr X sought a review of the Council’s decision as he believed the evidence he had provided should have led to a Band A award.
11. The Council did not change Mr X’s banding after carrying out a review. It told Mr X the information he provided did not meet the criteria described for Band A in its housing allocations policy.
12. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
13. I have reviewed the Council’s housing allocations policy. The Council considered the information that Mr X provided and applied it to the policy.
14. As the Council made its decision in line with its policy and having considered the information provided Mr X provided, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision making process to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because some of it is late, and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman