Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award priority banding on her housing application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council did not award priority banding on her housing application. She says she is at risk of violence from a third party if she continues to live at her current address. She wants the Council to move her.
2. Miss X says her circumstances have worsened since the Council’s review. She wants the Council to consider the further evidence she has obtained since its review decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council’s published policy says band 1 priority is given to households who qualify for “additional preference” within its policy. “Additional preference” on welfare grounds in given to applicants who need to move immediately due to domestic abuse, extreme violence or extreme harassment. The Council relies on evidence provided by applicants in its decision making, such as a recommendation from the police that the person needs to be urgently rehoused.
9. Relevant to Miss X’s case, the Council said it reviewed Miss X’s circumstances at the time and evidence from police. It decided that Miss X’s application did not meet the threshold for band 1 priority. It referred Miss X to its homelessness team for an assessment if she remained concerned about her safety.
10. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. It considered Miss X’s case in line with its published policy and explained its decision clearly. I cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision when there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making.
11. Miss X says her circumstances have changed since the review. This part of Miss X’s complaint is premature. It is open to Miss X to contact the Council about any change in her circumstance to give it an opportunity to investigate and reply.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman