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. 
   Mr X initially complains of several issues, including mishandled housing application, omission of medical evidence, and alleged systemic maladministration. The Council has followed the Housing Allocations Policy, which is in accordance with s.166A (3) Housing Act 1996. The evidence shows that the Council has taken all the required steps to investigate the issues raised by Mr X, and that a further investigation would not alter the outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must 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 investigation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X initially complains 15 July 2025 of several issues, alleged mishandled housing application, omission of medical evidence, and alleged systemic maladministration. The Council have followed the Housing Allocations Policy, which is in accordance with s.166A (3) Housing Act 1996. Mr X has claimed that medical evidence has been omitted, which is not the case, as its role is not to take evidence in isolation and is to assess the application in its entirety.
6. It is not unusual to have contrary medical opinions, the Council has considered all evidence submitted by Mr X. Child Y suffers with ADHD, emotional dysregulation, sleep disturbance, and it has not been recommended to have a separate bedroom.
7. The housing officers believe it is not necessary to have sought a second opinion, but they proceeded to take this additional step in this instance. This is suggestive of a detailed assessment of the housing application. Mr X has been placed in Band C on the register on medical grounds in recognition of child Y’s medical condition, which is for “identified housing need”.
8. The Council has taken all the required steps to investigate the issues raised by Mr X and are the ultimate decision makers as the housing professionals, in accordance with the Ealing Housing Allocations Policy 2023 and with s.166A (3) of Housing Act 1996.
9. The Council concluded that there is no medical evidence that suggests child Y needs their own bedroom, considering their age. The evidence has been assessed in accordance with Housing Allocation Policy 2023, the Housing Act 1996 Part VI as amended, the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, s.149 Equality Act 2010 and other relevant legislations.
10. The Council has demonstrated professionalism in the handling of Mr X’s complaint, with no undue delay in communication.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application further. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.  

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman