The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Miss Y complained the Council has refused to increase her banding priority to the highest banding, despite her mental health being affected by her current housing situation.
Miss Y says she feels, as a parent with three small children in a top floor flat without a lift, like she is imprisoned in her home in her current accommodation and the Council’s decision is unfair.
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 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)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)) Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
In this case, the Council’s housing letting scheme includes a Band B, in which Miss Y is currently placed, and a Band A. The Council’s review of Miss Y’s banding priority shows that it does not have evidence which would be sufficient to place Miss Y in Band A. Band A includes those with acute medical or welfare needs, and two other specific criteria, which Miss Y has not provided evidence to show she would meet.
Consequently, the Council has not increased Miss Y’s priority banding. It has invited Miss Y to provide it with evidence to support her case if she feels this is incorrect but has explained that without evidence which would meet the criteria, which has not been supplied, she will not be awarded the higher banding priority.
As the Council has made its decision with reference to the criteria set out in its housing letting policy, having considered the evidence available to it, we would not find fault in the way the decision was made. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman