Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, in how the Council considered the matter, to justify an investigation. And we cannot achieve what Mr X is looking for. Nor will we look at the complaints handling as it is not within public interest.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not award him medical priority, as well as points for welfare need and overcrowding. He stated they ignored his evidence. Mr X said this caused him distress.

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained that the Council failed to take account of medical and welfare evidence from professionals when making its decision on what award to give him on its housing register. He also complained that he was not awarded points for overcrowding.
6. The Council’s initial consideration of Mr X’s application and appeal correspondence demonstrates it considered Mr X’s medical and welfare needs, but this still fell short of the level of impairment that would mean Mr X was eligible for a medical and welfare priority. Similarly, the Council explained why he was not eligible for consideration for overcrowding due to his living arrangements.
7. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman 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
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault. On the information available in the reports I have seen, there is evidence the Council have followed the processes and considered Mr X’s medical and welfare needs, evaluated them in line with its housing allocation policy and decided he did not meet the threshold for medical and welfare priority nor points for overcrowding.
9. Mr X also complained about the complaints handling stating that the Council delayed his review, ignored his communication preferences and committed a data breach.
10. Nor will we investigate the complaints handling as it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue
11. Additionally, Mr X is seeking a large amount of compensation, amounting to £20,000, and this is not achievable as it far exceeds the Ombudsman guidelines and is therefore not one we could recommend the Council to pay.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the substantive outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman