The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Mrs X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision, so we cannot criticise the decision.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her application for social housing. In particular, she says the Council wrongly put her application in Band C instead of Band B. Mrs X says this means her family has less chance of moving from overcrowded accommodation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council. I also viewed the Council’s website and its housing allocations policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X, her husband and three children live in a one-bedroom property. The Council agrees with Mrs X that the family is ‘severely overcrowded.’ The Council has more applicants for social housing than properties available. So the Council must follow its housing allocations policy when prioritising applications.
Mrs X argued her application should have Band B priority on the housing register. She cited part of the Council’s allocations policy that states it will give Band B priority to: “Haringey Council tenants and Registered Partner tenants living in Haringey who are severely overcrowded and have at least two rooms less than the number of rooms to which they would be entitled to under Haringey’s Housing Allocations Policy. This includes reception rooms that could reasonably be used as bedrooms.”
However, Mrs X is not a tenant of the Council or of a registered partner (which means certain housing associations). She is a private tenant. So the part of the policy Mrs X cited does not apply to her. There was therefore no fault in the Council refusing her Band B priority on that ground.
The Council decided the relevant part of its policy was the part that states it will give Band C priority to: “Applicants who are severely overcrowded and living in private rented (including non-partner housing association) accommodation in Haringey.”
So the Council has given Mr X’s application Band C priority.
I appreciate Mrs X’s family’s living conditions are difficult. However, the Council’s actions are in line with its allocations policy and its understanding of Mrs X’s circumstances. Therefore the Council reached its decision properly. That means I cannot criticise the Council’s decision, as paragraph 3 explained, although Mrs X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
Mrs X says the overcrowding in her home causes condensation, which she says affects her children’s health. If she wants the Council to consider giving her application added medical priority, she can discuss with the Council how to apply for that and what evidence might be needed. The Council also advised Mrs X how to proceed if she believes the problems in her property are due to disrepair the landlord should deal with. There was no fault in that.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman