Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority given to a housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She says the Council did not consider all her circumstances and did not increase her priority status for bidding for properties on the housing register. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision, but it remained unchanged.
2. Ms X says this has caused her distress and has meant she has lost the chance of moving to a suitable property sooner. She says this has caused distress and she is left living in a property that is unsuitable and does not meet the family’s basic needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X believes the medical needs of the family should result in her application having higher priority. She has provided the Council with evidence, but this did not alter Ms X’s priority band. This decision is in line with the Council’s allocations policy and the evidence suggests the Council reached that decision properly, after considering the evidence and its policy, so we are unlikely to fault it.
8. Ms X’s home is overcrowded. The Council has given her application appropriate priority for overcrowding under its allocation policy. The Council also agreed to reassess overcrowding once one of the children has reached an age meaning they will no longer be able to share a room with their sibling. This is in line with the Council’s allocations policy and we would be unlikely to fault these decisions if we investigated.
9. Ms X says another council gave her application higher priority, which she says is evidence the Council’s decision was wrong. We do not consider there is enough evidence of fault here and just because another council has reached a different decision, does not mean this Council was at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman