Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X’s housing priority on the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to properly consider her request for an increase in her housing priority. Ms X considers that, as a result, she and her children are living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary which is causing significant distress to them.

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)
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X is on the Council’s housing register. Ms X asked the Council to increase her housing priority from band C. Ms X considered her current accommodation was overcrowded, and it did not meet her and her children’s medical needs.
7. The Council considered Ms X’s request but decided Ms X should remain in band C. Ms X’s representative requested a review of the decision on her behalf.
8. The Council considered the request but concluded its decision to place Ms X in band C was correct.
9. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what medical priority should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper process when making its decision.
10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. The Council’s review decision letter shows it considered Ms X’s reasons for why her priority should be increased. It also considered the evidence provided by Ms X and the professionals supporting her. The Council’s letter shows it weighed up the evidence and provided a reasoned explanation for why it considered it should not increase Ms X’s priority. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman