Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She says the Council ignored the medical needs of her and her two-children who have Special Educational Needs, she said her and eligibility for suitable housing was changed unfairly.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

3. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Miss X joined the Council’s housing list in October 2020. She says she has actively been bidding for homes advertised.
7. Miss X says since her housing application was placed in priority Band 2A, requiring a 3-bedroom home, she experienced an unfair drop in her bidding position and excessive waiting times. She says she was diagnosed with ADHD and her children suffer Special Educational Needs and the Council failed to consider these factors in her priority banding, despite the serious impact on her family’s wellbeing.
8. The evidence suggests that the Council assessed the medical needs of Miss X and her family, in line with its Allocations Scheme, resulting in her being reassessed as needing a 3-bedroom property, instead of a 2-bedroom property.
9. Because her needs are for larger accommodation she says that her bidding position has changed from an average position of 30 for 2-bedroom vacancies to 500 for 3-bedroom ones. She says she has already been bidding for 6 years and the Council told her that the average waiting time for 3-bedroom lets is 12 years. She believes that her chance of being re-housed has become less with her increase in eligibility for a larger home.
10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
12. 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.
13. The Council explained to Miss X that her queue position on the housing register changed because there were more families on the housing register who also required a 3-bedroom property. It explained that fewer 3-bedroom homes were becoming available and waiting times increased since her application was processed.
14. The Council told Miss X that her preference date remained unchanged, so she would not have to start again in terms of waiting time. It reassured her that her submitted health assessment form was under review and her application would be placed in a higher priority band if she met the threshold for additional priority on health grounds.
15. Miss X asked the Council to place her in temporary accommodation until a 3-bedroom vacancy occurs but she did not have a homelessness application at the time. She has since submitted one and the council accepted her under the Relief duty. It has made it clear to her that she would be initially offered interim accommodation which may be bed and breakfast accommodation outside the borough.
16. There was no undue delay in making the Council’s decision and it explained its reasons at each stage. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify us investigating and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman