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 about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says that he believes his medical condition should place him in band a on the Council’s housing register but following a review he remains in Band B.

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 considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider his housing needs when determining his housing register assessment and banding review. He says he provided evidence that he has enduring mental health conditions but this did not increas his priority.
6. Mr X believes that he should be awarded Band A allocation on mental health grounds and questions whether the Council’s actions were fair, lawful and in accordance with its statutory obligations.
7. The Council’s record of response to Mr X shows that it assessed his circumstances including the medical information that Mr X had provided: it signposted Mr X to the Housing Allocations Scheme which states “Band A will consist of applicants in the following circumstances: Terminal or life-threatening medical condition” and Band B consists of applicants entitled to a reasonable preference with an urgent need to move for allocation of social rented housing and these applicants (such as Mr X) are defined as needing to move on medical or welfare grounds (including grounds relating to a disability), due to effects caused by present accommodation.
8. Mr X does not have a terminal or life-threatening condition according to the medical evidence and so he cannot be placed higher than Band B on these grounds due to the high threshold for Band A medical cases. He has no other housing needs which would qualify for 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. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s application of the assessment process.

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