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. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application she says that she provided medical evidence with her application and with a review request but this did not change the Council’s banding priority of Band B. she believes she should be placed in Band A.

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. Miss X says the Council did not award the correct priority to her housing application. She provided medical information and a report form an occupational therapist to support her application but received a Band B priority which she believes is insufficient. She asked for a non-statutory review of her banding under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 part 6. The Council carried out the review but her banding remained in Band B.
6. The Council’s criteria for Band A priority on medical grounds are that an applicant has a terminal or life-threatening condition or that they are in hospital with an imminent discharge date and have no suitable accommodation available to return to. Miss X’s circumstances do not meet this high threshold and the Council says that her medical needs are relevant to the priority awarded by Band B under its allocations scheme.
7. 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.
8. 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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Miss X should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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