Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s priority for social housing. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify investigating. More recent events mean it is also unlikely we could achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award silver priority to his application for social housing. He says his circumstances, and in particular the impact of his housing on his medical conditions, means he meets the criteria for gold priority.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Councils must set out how they prioritise applicants for social housing in a published allocations policy. They must then allocate in line with the policy. The law sets out some minimum requirements, but councils have broad discretion in deciding how to prioritise applications.
7. We are not an appeal body. That means we do not take a fresh look at a decision and decide if it was wrong or remake the decision ourselves. Our role is to consider whether there was any fault in how the Council made its decision. If there was no fault in how it made the decision, we cannot question the result.
8. In allocations, that means we check the Council’s policy meets the requirements of the law. We then consider if the Council has properly followed its policy and considered all relevant information in deciding what priority to award.
9. There is no evidence the Council’s policy does not meet the minimum requirements. In Mr X’s case, the Council carried out a detailed review of its decision. It set out the medical evidence it considered and explained why this did not meet the criteria for gold priority set out in its policy. There is no evidence it failed to consider relevant information or misapplied its policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision and so we will not investigate.
10. In any event, Mr X’s circumstances changed recently. The Council made a new decision, increasing his priority to gold. This means it is unlikely we could achieve anything worthwhile by investigating the earlier decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and more recent events mean it is unlikely investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman