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

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of Mr Y. She complained that the Council wrongly refused to award sufficient housing priority to Mr Y. Ms X says that as a result Mr Y cannot move from unsuitable housing where he is at risk of domestic abuse. Ms X also says that Mr Y cannot have medical treatment while he is living in unsuitable accommodation.

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. (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, on behalf of Mr Y, and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y applied to the Council’s housing register as he needed to move from his property due to domestic abuse. The Council decided Mr Y qualified for the housing register and placed him in priority band D. It also considered Mr Y was eligible for a one bedroom property.
7. Mr Y requested a review of the Council’s decision to place him in band D. Mr Y also said he needed a two bedroom property due to medical and care needs.
8. The Council considered Mr Y’s review request. It did not change Mr Y’s priority band or agree Mr Y was eligible for a two bedroom property. The Council’s review decision letter set out the information it considered when reaching its decision. The letter addressed Mr Y’s reasons for wanting increased priority and two bedrooms. It also explained why Mr Y’s reasons and circumstances were not sufficient to increase his priority and make him eligible for a two bedroom property.
9. Some months later, the Council increased Mr Y’s housing priority to band C and decided he was eligible for two bedroom properties. Ms X requested a review of Mr Y’s priority on his behalf as she considered he should be placed in band B.
10. The Council refused to increase Mr Y’s priority to band B. The Council’s review letter notifying Mr Y of its decision set out the information considered when reaching its decision. It noted officers visited Mr Y to discuss his housing circumstances and why he considered his property to be unsuitable for his medical needs. The Council addressed Mr Y’s reasons for wanting increased priority and explained why it would not increase his priority.
11. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what housing priority should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper process when making its decision.
12. The Council’s review decision letters show it considered all the relevant information, including its housing allocation policy, when considering Mr Y’s priority band and bedroom eligibility. It provided reasoned explanations for why it would not increase Mr Y’s priority. Its decision to increase Mr Y’s priority to band C was due to additional information. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council considered Mr Y’s housing priority and bedroom eligibility.
13. The Council also appropriately advised Mr Y on how he could make a homelessness application due to domestic abuse. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final Decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman