Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says he wants the Council to give him a discretionary management move to bigger accommodation. He also says his medical needs were not properly considered.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he needs to move to larger accommodation because his current housing association home is too small and unsuitable for his medical needs. He asked the Council to consider him for a discretionary management transfer to another home. The Council told him that only his landlord can carry out discretionary moves within its housing stock.
6. Mr X also applied to the Council’s housing register under its allocations scheme. He provided medical evidence to support his case but says he was only awarded Band C. He complained about his banding to the Council and it reviewed his application. The Council concluded that his banding was correct for his needs and that his case was suspended for 28 days until he provided documents required to support his claim for a higher banding. Mr X then complained to us.
7. We cannot consider complaints about applications to move outside the 1996 Housing Act allocations scheme. Mr X is a housing association tenant and any discretionary move is for his landlord to determine.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. We 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. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Mr X should be placed in a higher banding and he has completed the review process for his application.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman