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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He asked for a statutory review and remained dissatisfied with the decision to leave his application in Band E due to its policy on rent arrears. He believes he was not given reasonable adjustments for his memory impairment and that he should have a higher 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council failed to take into account his medical needs and also the mental health needs of his children when it assessed his housing application. He is living in a property which is lacking one bedroom for his family’s needs but was placed in Band E on the housing list because he has rent arrears on his current tenancy. He would normally be given a Band B priority but the housing allocations policy places a demotion to E Banding on tenants until the arrears are cleared.
6. Mr X says he has memory problems caused by a head injury. This has affected his ability to maintain his rent and understand housing benefit issues. He asked the Council to carry out a review of his case under s.166A of the housing Act 1996. The Council carried out the review but his banding was unchanged.
7. The Council said he did not provide sufficient medical evidence that his injury was causing incapacity and the rent arrears have accrued over the past 4 years. It’s medical advisor recognised he received PIP payments but there was no compelling evidence that this was directly connected to the injury he has mentioned.
8. Because he has some disability the Council agreed to use its discretion to make his case an exception and that it would review the application again in 6 months if he had reduced the rent arrears by half as his current rent was covered by Universal Credit and discretionary housing payment. It also believes this may help him have a better chance of being considered by social housing providers should his priority be increased in future and he is able to receive an offer of housing.
9. 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 processes an organisation 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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
10. In this case there is no evidence to suggest that the review was not through and that the council acted fairly in line with its allocations policy when considered Mr X’s case.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr 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