Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to reassess his banding in its housing allocations scheme as it did not properly consider his family’s medical needs and his current, overcrowded living conditions. He also complained the Council gave poor guidance on how to submit further documentation, leading to a delay in his complaint being responded to.

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))
3. 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

4. I considered information Mr X and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about his banding under its housing allocations scheme. Mr X said that while his son’s health has led to his banding including severe medical priority already, his own poor health and overcrowding out to lead to a re-banding for his application from Band 2 to Band 1.
6. The Council responded, explaining that based on the information it held, Mr Y’s banding priority was correct. While he had provided further information, it told him he would need to complete a Change in Circumstances (CIC) form, to allow the Council to process this information and consequently, assess whether his banding should change. It also told him that he would need to have a medical assessment as part of the Council’s consideration of his banding and gave examples of the type of information Mr X could provide to support his re-assessment.
7. Mr X was unhappy with this response. He then also complained the Council had failed to provide guidance on how he could provide information. The Council responded, denying fault and confirming its position on Mr X’s banding and his need to complete a CIC form. Mr X then approached us.
8. We are not an appeal body. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
9. In this case the Council has a process, where if you wish to have your banding reconsidered after the initial period in which you can challenge your banding, you must complete a CIC form and provide information to support your application. It gave guidance about what documentation Mr X may want to include with his CIC form and the criteria he would need to meet to gain additional priority within his banding based on volunteering and work.
10. As Mr X has not during the complaint process completed the CIC form, the Council has not been able to process his request for reassessment of his banding. This is in line with its housing allocations policy. As Mr X has not provided the Council with the all the information it needs to be able to reassess his banding and it has followed its policy in giving its response, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
11. Also, as the Council provided guidance to Mr X about which form to complete and what information to provide and what to select when he is requesting a reassessment of his banding, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman