Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about the Council’s housing register decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision that a studio flat would meet his medical needs. He is seeking a one bedroom flat.

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.

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. He provided medical evidence to show he had mobility difficulties and that the single room he rents in a private house was negatively affecting his medical health.
6. The Council accepted the application. It awarded Mobility Category 3, which is for those applicants with severe mobility problems. It said a studio flat would meet his medical needs. In deciding this, it considered the medical evidence concerning the impact of his current housing (a single room) on his medical health. It explained that in a studio flat Mr X would have much more space and said there was no evidence to show a studio flat would negatively impact Mr X’s physical or mental health.
7. In his review request, Mr X asked for a change of mobility category and an extra bedroom because he said a friend sometimes supports him overnight. It said Mr X did not meet the criteria for Mobility Category 2 because that is for applicants who use a wheelchair and explained its reasons for deciding Mobility Category 3 was correct. It said there was no evidence of overnight care needs to justify an extra bedroom. It set out how it had considered the medical evidence provided. In one paragraph it also referred to a daughter with medical needs. Mr X said there was no daughter on his application, so the Council must have mixed up his details and that its decision was therefore not reliable.

My assessment

8. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. Councils have wide powers to design their allocation schemes to meet local needs, but the law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
9. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and its allocation scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding a studio flat would meet Mr X’s needs and that Mobility Category 3 was appropriate. There was no undue delay in making its decisions. Although there was a reference to a daughter, which appears to be an error, this does not invalidate the decision, which was in line with the published scheme. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman