Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing register application and his request for a two-bedroom bungalow. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Summary: Mr X complains that the Council wrongly refused to award him medical priority and a higher banding, and would not allocate him a 2-bed bungalow on the housing register. He says the Council gave inconsistent information, failed to help and that delay/neglect has caused stress and contributed to him not being able to proceed with an operation.

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. Mr X says the Council’s decision to not award him additional medical priority and not allocate him the specific two-bedroom bungalow has left him in unsuitable accommodation.
6. The Council’s records show it assessed Mr X’s circumstances, including the information about his health and the Occupational Therapist’s involvement, and explained why it considered he was adequately housed and why medical priority was not awarded at that time. It also explained what type of properties he should bid for and what evidence would be needed if he was seeking a two-bedroom bungalow on medical grounds.
7. Mr X currently lives in a 3-bedroom house which the council says has bathing and toilet facilities on both floors. The assessment by an Occupational Therapist concluded that his home could be further adapted for his medical needs without him moving. If he still wished to move 1-bedroom bungalows would be sufficient for his needs. The Council advised Mr X that if he has any changes to his medical needs he could ask for a further medical assessment and a review of his priority.
8. 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.
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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Mr X’s application should include 2-bedroom recommendation. 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 Mr X’s housing register application and his request for a two-bedroom bungalow. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman