Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award his housing application additional priority. This is mostly because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to award his housing application additional priority. He also says the Council made errors in its decision and wrongly recorded his housing need as overcrowding rather than homelessness.
2. Mr X says his current accommodation is affecting his physical and mental health and he wants the Council to award him additional priority.

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 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(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 Mr X.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Allocations Scheme Policy.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s Allocations Scheme Policy allows it to award additional priority on health or disability grounds if someone:
• has a severe long-term limiting illness, or permanent and substantial disability; and
• their health or quality of life is severely affected by the home they live in.
7. Mr X applied for additional priority on health grounds, saying his accommodation affected his physical and mental health. The Council decided he did not meet the criteria for additional priority.
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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. The evidence I have seen shows the Council considered Mr X’s application and his medical evidence against its policy. The Council explained its decision clearly and invited Mr X to provide more information for its consideration. I am satisfied the Council has followed proper processes and made a decision it was entitled to. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Incorrect banding

10. Mr X also complains the Council recorded his housing need as overcrowding rather than homelessness.
11. The Council placed Mr X in band 2A. Its Allocations Scheme says applicants who are overcrowded or homeless fall within band 2A.
12. It does not appear that Mr X has raised this issue directly with the Council. In any event, his application falls within band 2A whether the Council records his need as overcrowding or homelessness. His priority would therefore be unchanged. Any alleged error has not caused Mr X significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, and any alleged error in recording his housing need has not caused him significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman