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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not properly consider the evidence he provided in support of his application for a review of his housing priority banding. Mr X says the Council failed to consider his medical needs. Mr X says this has affected the mental health of both him and his family and would like the Council to reconsider the decision.

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 Mr 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 Mr X’s housing register priority banding and refused to increase Mr X’s priority from a Band C. Mr X was given this priority banding under the Council’s housing allocations policy due to his current property being unintentionally overcrowded and his family needing one additional bedroom
8. Mr X says his family should be given a higher priority banding because of his need for a bath in his property to ease pain he suffers as a result of a medical condition.
9. The Council’s review letter notifying Mr X of its decision sets out the information it considered which included a letter from Mr X’s Occupational Therapist (OT). The Council’s records show it made further enquiries with the OT requesting clarification of the recommendations provided by the OT in that letter. The Council also considered it’s housing policy.
10. On that basis, the Council stated in its review letter to Mr X the OT had confirmed Mr X could shower safely with equipment already provided. The Council concluded Mr X’s reason for requesting a bath was not an urgent medical or disability reason. The Council kept Mr X’s housing banding at Band C.
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. The documents show the Council considered the relevant information and explained its reasons to Mr X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its review of Mr X’s assessment or his priority. Because of this we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr 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