Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision he did not qualify to join the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly decided he did not qualify to join the housing register. He says the Council failed to properly consider his child’s medical needs or the disrepair in his rented property.

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X lives with his spouse and two children in a three-bedroom privately rented property. Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register because one of his children, Y, has medical needs which Mr X says are not met in the current home. 
7. The Council decided Mr X did not qualify for the housing register because it considered Y’s needs could be met in the current property. It completed a review of this decision and explained it considered the information and evidence Mr X provided about Y's medical needs but decided the accommodation could meet Y's needs. The Council explained Y had their own bedroom and access to private outside space. It said there was no professional evidence that showed Y had a need for an adapted bathroom and suggested Mr X obtain an occupational therapy assessment of Y’s bathroom use.
8. We are 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 has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
9. The Council must consider housing applications in line with its policy taking into account the evidence before it. I have seen no evidence the Council was provided with a professional assessment or report identifying a need for an adapted bathroom. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its policy. If an occupational therapist or other professional identifies a need for an adapted bathroom, or any other requirement that cannot be met within the property, Mr X can submit a new application.
10. Mr X also said the family could not afford alternative private rented accommodation. The Council explained that affordability had not formed part of his application and that Mr X could submit a new application for an affordability assessment. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered affordability. 
11. There is also insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s housing enforcement actions. The Council explained damp, mould and other disrepair should be raised with the landlord and then with its Private Sector Housing Team. Mr X says he raised the issues with his landlord, but I have seen no evidence he reported them to the Council's Private Sector Housing Team. It remains open to him to do so and request an inspection.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its policy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman