Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that she is not eligible to join its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her application to join its housing register. She says the Council did not properly consider the evidence provided about her reasons for needing alternative accommodation.

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council considered her application under the ‘Medical, Welfare and Hardship’ priority rehousing criteria of its Housing Allocations Scheme. To qualify for this criteria, Miss X or her family must have a ‘severe and enduring medical condition that your current accommodation is significantly and adversely affecting’. It decided she was not eligible.
7. Miss X requested a review of the decision. As part of its review, the Council considered information about Miss X’s health conditions by contacting her GP and seeking a view from its Medical Advisor and her reasons for needing to move. It decided there were no significant or exceptional circumstances to make an exception to its policy and so upheld its decision that she was not eligible to join the housing register. It advised her that if her circumstances changed, she could make another application.
8. 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.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council appropriately considered Miss X’s housing application including information about her health conditions and reasons for wanting to move. It decided she was not eligible to join the housing register. Its decision appears in line with its housing allocations policy and so we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman