Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the priority band the Council awarded to his housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly applied its Home Options Policy to his housing application. He says his landlord increased the rent on his previous home to a level his family could not afford. As a result, they moved temporarily into a smaller property offered by friends while they waited for suitable accommodation through the Council's housing register. Mr X says the Council treated this move as a deliberate worsening of circumstances and reduced his priority on the housing register. He says the Council did not properly consider the circumstances that led to the move. Mr X says this has caused distress and uncertainty for him and his family. He wants the Council to reconsider its decision and award the priority band he believes is appropriate.

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. (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)

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

6. Mr X requested a formal review of his housing priority band following the Council’s decision to apply its deliberate worsening of circumstances Home Options Policy to his housing application.
7. The Council carried out a review and considered the information Mr X provided about his previous accommodation, the increase in rent, his financial circumstances and local housing costs.
8. Following the review, the Council concluded Mr X had not shown he had no reasonable alternative but to move into accommodation that worsened his housing circumstances. It therefore decided the deliberate worsening provisions of its policy had been applied correctly.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself. The available evidence shows the Council considered the relevant information, reviewed Mr X’s representations and explained the reasons for its decision. While Mr X disagrees with the outcome, there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman