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 complained about the Council’s failure to give his transfer application more priority because he says that he is living in an overcrowded flat which does not meet the standards for a house in multiple occupation (HMO). He says the Council should recognise his housing need by awarding a transfer to a bigger tenancy.

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 policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says his flat is too small for himself and his children who stay with him frequently. He asked the Council to give his transfer application higher priority because he is legally overcrowded and his flat does not meet the HMO standard for a one-bedroom accommodation.
6. The Council told Mr X that he is not living in a HMO and that he is the tenant of a 1-bedroom council social housing flat which has separate kitchen, bathroom and bedroom layout. The accommodation also has use of a separate living room. Under the statutory overcrowding regulations in the Housing Act 1985 any separate living room is included within the floor space as a room which can be used for sleeping. For these reasons he is not regarded as being statutorily overcrowded.
7. The Council says he is in Band C2 under its allocations policy which recognises he is a bedroom short when his children stay but he does not meet the threshold for a direct offer or higher banding.
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. 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 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