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. Ms X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says that it has rejected her application as non-qualifying. She says that it failed to consider her circumstances correctly, ignored her medical evidence and disregarded problems with lifts in the building where her mother is the tenant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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 says she was denied entry onto the Council’s housing register because the Council failed to properly consider her application. She says she should fall into the reasonable preference category due to overcrowding and her medical issues. She says the review of the rejection did not properly take into account her medical needs, ignored problems with the lifts in the building where she lives and misunderstood her housing status.
6. The Council told Ms X that her family is classed as a household seeking separate accommodation form the council tenancy where her mother is the tenant. She did not meet the threshold for overcrowding or medical priority under its allocations policy. Ms X was able to submit medical support evidence from her GP but the Council ‘s policy says GP support letters are not sufficient to establish medical property.
7. Ms X’s mother is the tenant of the property and problems concerning the lifts in the communal area are repair matters which she should take up with her social housing landlords. They were not considered to be par to the assessment on how the accommodation which Ms X lives in affects her family’s needs.
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.

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