Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his social housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s failure to act on an Occupational Therapist’s recommendations for the type of property his family needs. He says his current property is overcrowded and unsafe for his family.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 Mr Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y applied for rehousing on health grounds. The Council rejected this and Mr Y requested a review of the decision. The Council reviewed this through its Occupational Therapist (OT) Team. The OT advised that Mr Y’s property does not meet his family need, and recommended his family be moved to a property on the ground floor with three bedrooms. The Council accepted this, and updated Mr Y’s application. Mr Y says there were delays in processing this. However, the Council backdated the award date in line with its policy and placed his application in the highest priority band. Therefore, Mr Y did not suffer significant injustice because of the delays.
6. I acknowledge Mr Y’s concerns with his property not meeting his family need, but he must continue to wait on the waiting list until he reaches the top of this. The Council explained it has an extreme mismatch between supply and demand of social housing, and I understand this is a national concern affecting many people. The Council advised Mr Y to continue bidding on properties, as this would increase his chances of receiving an offer for alternative accommodation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
7. I understand Mr Y disagrees with the Council about the number of bedrooms his family needs. He submitted a further medical review about this, and the Council said it would review this. If Mr Y has concerns about how this further medical review is carried out, he should first raise this with the Council. If he remains unsatisfied with its response, he can raise a further complaint with us.
8. Mr Y also raised concerns about the OT’s conduct. However, this is not something for the Ombudsman to comment on therefore we will not investigate this part of the complaint. We look at organisational fault, not individual professional competence. Decisions about individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended).

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman