Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says the Council relied on outdated medical evidence and failed to properly consider her need for an additional bedroom for a carer and her brother. She says she should be placed in Band A and awarded a larger property.

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 and we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

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. Miss X says the Council wrongly assessed her housing needs. She says she requires a larger property due to her medical needs, including a need for an additional bedroom for a carer, and because her brother should be included in her household.
7. The Council considered Miss X’s application and review under its Housing Allocation Scheme. It assessed her household and determined her brother would not be included as there was insufficient evidence he would reasonably reside with her.
8. Miss X provided medical evidence in support of her request for an additional bedroom. The Council considered this evidence and records held by Adult Social Care. It concluded the evidence did not show she required a live‑in carer or that she could not share a bedroom, which are the criteria for awarding an additional bedroom under the scheme.
9. The Council recognised Miss X’s medical circumstances and awarded Band B priority on medical and welfare grounds. It decided she did not meet the threshold for Band A, which is reserved for the most urgent cases.
10. The Ombudsman is 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 process the Council followed. If we are satisfied it followed the correct process, we cannot question the outcome.
11. Councils are entitled to assess housing applications in accordance with their allocation schemes. We will not find fault where a council has applied its policy correctly, considered the relevant evidence, and reached a decision it was entitled to make.
12. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council considered Miss X’s application, assessed the available evidence, and explained its decision in line with its allocation scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman