Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s management of her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council applied its housing allocations policy unfairly. She says it reduced her banding when she asked to bid for houses, despite there being no change in her medical 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. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X asked to be rehoused because her current house did not meet her needs.
6. The Council’s housing allocations policy says:
• Gold Plus is awarded where an applicant has a high medical need that is directly affected by their current housing and would be immediately improved by moving;
• Gold may be awarded where there is an exceptional welfare need; and
• Bronze is awarded for low medical need.
7. The Council initially awarded Miss X Gold Plus as it considered she had a high medical need because she required step-free accommodation and her current home, a house with stairs, did not meet this need. Miss X was therefore able to bid for step-free properties.
8. Miss X later asked to bid on houses, stating they were more suitable for her household. As her original Gold Plus priority was based on the need to move from a property with stairs to a property without stairs, this request prompted the Council to reassess her housing needs and banding.
9. The Council decided Miss X did not have a high medical need for step-free accommodation. It considered her wider circumstances, including her mental health and issues with neighbours, and whether exceptional welfare grounds applied. The Council decided these factors justified a Gold band.
10. Miss X complains the Council were unfair and inconsistent in the application of its housing policy. She says she should not have her priority changed and should be able to bid on both step-free properties and properties with steps.
11. The Council is required to allocate housing in line with its policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its processes here. It took account of Miss X’s request and concluded she no longer required step-free accommodation, so the criteria for Gold Plus were not met. The Council considered Miss X’s circumstances to award Gold based on her welfare needs.
12. The Council also advised Miss X she could request a further review if her need for step-free accommodation changed and confirmed a Gold Plus band does not prevent bidding on suitable adapted properties.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman