Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is unable to bid on 4-bedroom properties. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Summary: Ms X says that the council have wrongly blocked her from being able to bid on 4 bedroom properties; at odds with its own guidance for households of 4-6 people. She says the Council will only allow her to bid on 5-bedroom properties due to her family size but these vacancies rarely occur.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Coventry Homefinder Policy sets out the Council’s housing allocations scheme. The policy uses the bedroom standard, which sets out how bedrooms should be allocated. The policy dictates that, in Ms X’s case, taking into consideration all the members of the household that only a 5-bedroom property would be an appropriate move. Therefore, Ms X only being able to bid on 5-bedroom properties rather than, for instance, 4-bedroom properties is in line with the Council’s housing allocations policy.
7. The Council also considered the medical evidence provided by Ms X and did not deem the documents met the criteria for Band 1 Urgent Housing Need due to health and/ or social care difficulties, as set out in its policy. The medical support evidence she provided mainly supported her need for a larger home.
8. Ms X asked for a review of her case under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 part 6. The review decision upheld the original Band 2 priority and accepted that that Ms X’s overarching housing need remains for 5 bedrooms as she is currently 2 bedrooms short in her 3-bedroom social housing tenancy.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means that 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.
10. 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

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman