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 it ignored medical evidence and the impact her living conditions had on her family which she says has resulted in a deterioration of her mental health and caused her family distress. She believes that she should be awarded Band A priority based on her housing needs.

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.

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 applied to join the Council’s housing register on 7 July 2024. She said that she was living in an overcrowded household with her two children at her father’s home, and that her mental health had significantly deteriorated due to her housing situation.
7. Upon assessment, the Council awarded Miss X Priority Band B. She requested a review of the Council decision under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6 as she believed that she should be awarded Band A due to her mental health issues arising from her current circumstances.
8. The Council considered how the relevant sections of its Housing Allocations policy applied to Miss X’s situation. After giving full regard to all the evidence presented, the Council concluded that it had correctly assessed Miss X’s application as meeting the Band B overcrowding criteria. It explained that she had not provided supporting evidence that would indicate that she had a terminal or life-threatening mental health condition, and so a Band A priority would not be appropriate. There are no other factors in her case which would warrant Band A priority.
9. 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.
10. The Ombudsman 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. Her application does not meet the Council’s high threshold for Band A priority.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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