Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about the Council’s assessment of his housing application on the grounds of ill health because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Summary: Mr X complained about theCouncil’s assessment of his housing aplpciation. He says he shoud be awarded additional medical prioroity because he lives in shared accommodation and this and other disturbance is affecting his health.

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 the Council has failed to properly assess his housing application. He says that his current accommodation is in a shared property for single people and that he suffers from overcrowding, noise, anti-social neighbours and lift faults and other disrepair issues.
6. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and its allocation policy. It explained its reasons for deciding not to award Mr X additional priority on the basis that the issues Mr X complained about were not directly related to medical issues and could be addressed under other parts of the allocations policy. He was awarded Band 3 priority.
7. Mr X asked for a review of his case and this was carried out with input form the Council’s medical advisors who considered the medical evidence available. The review did not change Mr X’s priority and it was noted that he had requested ground floor accommodation but he already occupies such a tenancy which is considered suitable for his medical needs.
8. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. Councils have wide powers to design their allocation schemes to meet local needs, but the law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
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 Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman