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. Miss X complained about the Council failing to give her housing application medical priority and increasing her banding priority because she was overcrowded and pregnant. She has recently had her baby and complains further that she has not been given additional priority for this.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register and is placed in band 3. She asked for a medical assessment because she is living in overcrowded conditions and was pregnant when she applied. The Council’s medical assessors concluded that she did not meet the threshold for medical priority and that she was already awarded her current priority on the basis of overcrowding. The housing allocations policy makes it clear that until a baby is born they cannot be added to the application.
6. When Miss X’s baby was born, which was after she complained to us, the Council did not award her additional priority. This is because she is already under the priority for overcrowding and a baby under 1 year old does not create any additional bedroom need. Under the statutory overcrowding regulations of the Housing Act 1985 a child under 1 year does not count towards overcrowding in terms of housing need.
7. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman