Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a housing application. We would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to take into account her child’s needs when it assessed which housing priority banding to place her application in. Miss X says her home is overcrowded, and both unsafe and too noisy for her child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

2. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. 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))
5. The Council accepted Miss X’s application to join its housing register. It assessed her family as needing a three-bedroom property and placed the application in priority Band C on medical grounds and because the family’s home is overcrowded. Miss X asked the Council to increase the priority banding because she said the road outside her home is unsafe for her child, given her child’s needs. She also asked the Council to rehouse her urgently.
6. The Council’s review decision letter shows it considered the individual needs of Miss X’s family by evaluating the medical evidence Miss X supplied, including supporting letters from medical professionals. This is in line with its published housing allocation scheme and we would therefore be unlikely to find fault in how the Council decided the family’s level of medical need.
7. The Council’s review decision letter confirmed it was satisfied the medical needs of Miss X’s child did not meet the criteria to increase her priority to Band A. We would be unlikely to find the Council at fault for how it decided this because it has followed the steps for how it determines priority outlined in its allocations scheme.
8. The Council agreed that Miss X’s home is overcrowded and decided her family needs a three-bedroom property. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its allocations scheme. There is no legal duty to provide social housing or to do so in any particular timescale.
9. It is frustrating for Miss X to have to continue living in a property that does not meet the needs of her and her family. However, the evidence suggests this is because of a lack of suitable available properties, not due to any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman