Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for Mrs X to ask for a further review of her application if her circumstances have changed.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says she should be awarded medical priority based on her family’s circumstances and that she was not awarded additional points for being statutorily overcrowded in a re-assessment in June 2024.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal
• (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says she submitted medical evidence that overcrowding in her current home is affecting her children. The Council assessed the evidence in June and concluded that although she is overcrowded, this housing situation is not having a direct affect on her family’s medical needs.
6. Mrs X asked for a further review and the Council agreed that she should have been awarded an additional 20 points for being statutorily overcrowded. In August 2024 the Council told Mrs X that the points would be added to her application and that she should submit any new medical evidence she had obtained if she wanted a further medical assessment.
7. In December the Council told Mrs X that her new medical assessment did not change her priority because she did not mee the threshold for additional points according to the allocations policy. She had the overcrowding points added but remains in Band B.
8. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
10. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Mrs X should be placed in a higher banding. If she has new information which the Council has not considered she could ask for a review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for Mrs X to ask for a further review of her application if her circumstances have changed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman