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 she is overcrowded and that she needs a further bedroom for her son.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 says she is living in overcrowded conditions with her son. She applied to the Council’s housing register but was awarded Band 3 which is a non-priority banding.
6. She made a complaint and asked for the banding to be reviewed. The Council told her in its response that she does not qualify for additional priority because she has a tenancy of a three-bedroom house and her son and herself only have needs for two bedrooms. Because she is classed as adequately housed she will not be awarded any higher priority unless her circumstances change.
7. Ms X says that she has three unrelated adults living in her tenancy because she has chosen to sub-let some of the rooms. The Council says it will not award higher priority because she has chosen to reduce the rooms available even though she has a legal tenancy to use all the rooms in her home for her needs. Her sole tenancy remains for three-bedroom accommodation and how she uses the rooms does not reflect her tenancy status on the housing register.
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’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Ms X should be placed in a higher banding.

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