Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its review. There is insufficient evidence of any fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to complete a review of his housing application banding within 8 weeks. He says that this is a failure to follow statutory procedure. He also disagrees with the outcome not to give his application higher priority on overcrowding and medical grounds.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to review his housing application because he believes he should be in a higher priority banding and have 4-bedroom need status rather than 3-bedroom. The Council acknowledged his request and gave a date of 25 August but it did not issue the decision until 29 August following a complaint from Mr X.
6. Reviews of housing application assessments under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 are non-statutory reviews. This means they do not have a statutory timescale for a decision, although the government’s Code of Guidance suggests 8 weeks is a reasonable period. In this case the Council exceeded the date by only four days and it reserves the right to extend the assessment period without a formal request. The outcome did not change Mr X’s position on the housing register so there was no injustice caused to him by a short extension of the determination time given to him.
7. Mr X has also complained about the Council’s decision not to award higher priority or change his property size needs. He has provided us with medical evidence which he says the Council did not take into account. The evidence is dated some two months after the review decision and so it would not apply to the Council’s review consideration.
8. Any housing applicant who has new information about the case, or who has had a change of circumstances can ask for a further review under s.166A if they believe it materially changes their banding assessment. Mr X could ask for a new review of the updated evidence. It would be for the Council to decide whether or not this affects his housing priority according to its allocations policy.
9. The Ombudsman 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its review. There is insufficient evidence of any fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman