Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s review of her housing priority banding. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider the evidence she provided in support of her application for a review of her housing priority banding. Miss X says the Council failed to consider the medical needs of her son, the risk these posed and the practical problems in her accommodation. Miss X also says the Council did not apply its allocation scheme correctly. Miss X wants a reassessment of her application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The published scheme

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme, (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)).
7. The Council carried out a review of Miss X’s housing register priority banding and refused to increase Miss X’s priority from a band C. Miss X was given this priority banding under the Council’s housing allocations policy due to her medical needs.
8. Miss X says her family should be given a higher priority banding because of her son’s special education needs and medical needs as well as problems in the layout of their current accommodation.
9. The Council’s review letter notifying Miss X of its decision sets out the information considered when reaching its decision. It appears the Council took into consideration the evidence Miss X provided. It also noted an officer visited Miss X to discuss her housing circumstances and why she considered her property to be unsuitable for her son’s medical needs. The Council addressed Miss X’s reasons for wanting increased priority and explained why it would not increase her priority.
10. The Council did not determine the needs of Miss X’s son to be of greater priority than hers. The Council therefore awarded Miss X a priority banding in line with its allocations scheme.
11. We are not an appeal body and cannot take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes a Council 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 Council has made.
12. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its review of Miss X’s assessment or her priority. Because of this we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman