Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s housing register application. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to act lawfully and reasonably when handling his housing case. He says it did not make reasonable adjustments for his disability, and dismissed medical evidence after making him pay for it. He says the Council uses a Choice Based Lettings system which fails to consider his needs which means he has no realistic prospect of getting rehoused. He says these failures have caused him continuing issues to his health and wellbeing. Mr X wants the Council to reassess his housing needs, ensure transparency in the lettings process and put in place independent oversight.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)
4. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council’s Lettings Policy was unlawful, which he said did not properly consider his disabilities under the Equality Act.
8. The Ombudsman does not have the power to decide if a policy is unlawful or if there has been a breach of the Equality Act, only a court can decide that. We can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. In this case, the Council met with Mr X to further understand if any reasonable adjustments applied. The Council explained to Mr X it had considered the evidence and assessed his application on that basis. The Council’s housing letting policy also sets out how it complies with equality laws.
9. The Council took account of the relevant guidance, its own policy and information from Mr X. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making its decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.
10. Mr X shared medical evidence from his doctor with the Council. The Council reassessed Mr X based on this evidence and moved him up into priority band 2. It told Mr X it has the right to request evidence of medical, mobility or physical disability and how a person’s housing made an impact. It also explained to Mr X if he became homeless in the future it would complete a reassessment.
11. Mr X complained he was entitled to apply for two-bedroom properties as his child stays with him. The Council incorrectly told Mr X he could not add his child to his application. The Council later confirmed the information Mr X was given was wrong and it would add his child to his application. It confirmed Mr X had not missed any potential allocations due to not adding his child to the application sooner. It offered Mr X £100 compensation for the issues. I am satisfied the Council has provided a suitable remedy for any injustice Mr X suffered and we are unlikely to add anything further to its response.
12. I understand Mr X is unhappy with how his application has been dealt with and the priority it has been given. But I am satisfied the Council properly considered the relevant information, including its housing policy, when deciding the priority for Mr X’s application and properly explained its decision to place him in band 2. The Council also considered Mr X’s needs and provided him with a list of alternative suitable areas, and solutions to increase his chances of securing a property that could meet his needs sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s response or achieve anything more for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman