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. Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider his mental and physical health problems when assessing his housing application. As a result, he says he was awarded an low, non-banded priority which he says does not reflect his housing need.

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. Mr X applied for housing under the Council’s housing allocations policy. He says he has mental health and social welfare needs which are difficult to provide evidence for, but which make his current housing situation difficult. The Council awarded a non-banded priority which allows him to remain on the register but with limited priority for bidding. This category replaced the previous Band D under the Council’s scheme.
6. Mr X believes he should have been awarded at least Band C under the policy and asked for a review of the decision. The Council carried out a review of the decision which is under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6.
7. In its response to the review, the Council upheld its original decision because insufficient additional evidence was provided to show that Mr X’s current accommodation was impacting on his health issues and failing to meet his daily needs. However, the Council stated that it could further review his application if this evidence could be provided or if he had a change in circumstances.
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. 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 can see to evidence that the Council failed to apply its allocations policy reasonably.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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