Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s review of her housing application priority. She says the Council gave her incorrect information about how to challenge the review outcome and delayed the procedure.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision on her housing application when she submitted medical information for higher priority for lower floor vacancies and this was unsuccessful. The Council acknowledged her review request but accepted it as a suitability review under s.202 Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 when it should have considered it as a non-statutory review under Part 6 s.166A of the Act.
6. Ms X asked about her appeal rights which are is available under s.202 and also why the 56-day review process had been breached. The Council told her it understood the review should have been treated as a non-statutory review and that she did not have any appeal rights or a statutory timescale under this procedure. Shortly afterwards the Council decided her review and it was not upheld because she did not meet the threshold for medical priority.
7. Ms X made a formal complaint about the Council’s errors and this was upheld. The Council offered her £30 compensation for three weeks delay in processing her form and the confusion caused by incorrect appeal advice.
8. The Council was wrong to consider Ms X’s review request as a suitability review. However, she never had the appeal rights which she was led to believe and s.166A reviews can only be challenged by a judicial review in the High Court or by complaining to us, which is what she eventually did.
9. I can see no evidence that the review was not properly considered and Ms X did not meet the threshold for mobility 3 which is the next band of mobility priority. We would not consider that there is sufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant further investigation of this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman