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

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the council offered her unsuitable accommodation, specifically with accommodation above her, despite medical evidence with specific reference to Ms X’s PTSD diagnosis, a recognised disability. She says it has decided to suspend her application for 12 months and remove her emergency priority Band 1 status.

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
• 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 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 was offered accommodation following her application for housing in which she was placed in Band 1 by the Council’s Emergency Housing Panel. The policy on emergency offers is that one direct offer only will be made. The Council made further medical assessments following the first offer and it was re-offered to Miss X. She did not accept the offer.
6. Ms X asked for a formal review of the offer and her application under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. Ms X also completed both stages of the Council’s formal complaints procedure during the housing review process. The Council acknowledged Ms X did not want to move into the property offered but was unable to find evidence to support her position.
7. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
8. The Council determined the review of the case and the offer and upheld the original decision. Because the offer had been declined the Council policy says her application should be suspended for 12 months and the emergency banding status withdrawn.
9. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or 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 Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing allocation because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman