The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice. In addition, the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision to place her in band C on the housing register. She also says the Council delayed dealing with the review and did not respond properly to her Subject Access Request (SAR). Ms X says the Council should make a direct housing offer and pay compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the information linked to her request for more priority. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X lives in a two bedroom property, on the fourth floor, with her daughter. Ms X and her daughter have health issues. Ms X says the lift often does not work. She also says there are issues with disrepair and the window locks are inadequate and dangerous. Ms X is in band C for medical reasons with a recommendation for ground floor accommodation or lifted accommodation with level access bathing facilities.
The Council awarded band C medical in April 2023. Ms X asked for a review because she thinks the Council should award band B. Ms X provided a lot of evidence to support her review; this included medical evidence, information about the lifts and letters from the school and MP.
The Council completed the review in January and confirmed band C is correct. It issued a detailed review letter which addressed Ms X’s points and referred to the supporting evidence. It explained why it had decided band C is the correct band. It also provided advice on dealing with the disrepair and said Ms X had not permitted the Council to contact the landlord.
The Council said the window locks might be grounds to increase the banding if the Council established it was impossible to fit stronger locks. The Council wanted to explore with the landlord if it would be possible to fit better locks. Ms X did not give consent so the Council could not take this issue forward.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We do not act as an appeal body and it is not my role to decide what band Ms X should be in. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council reached the decision and I have not seen evidence of fault.
The Council considered the allocations policy, the evidence and submissions from Ms X. The decision it reached flows from that evidence and the reasons were clearly explained. I appreciate Ms X disagrees with the decision but that does not mean there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
Ms X has complained of delay. I think the time taken may, in part, be because Ms X submitted a lot of material to support her case (as she was entitled to do). However, even if there was delay this has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation because the Council did not increase the band.
Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s response to her SAR. This, however, would be a matter for Ms X to take to the Information Commissioner. It is reasonable for Ms X to do this because the Information Commissioner is the appropriate body to consider complaints about SAR responses.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice, and because Ms X could complain to the Information Commissioner.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman