Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and an offer of accommodation. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a review of his application under the Housing Act 1996.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council offering him a property from the housing list which he says was unsuitable for the needs of his family. He says that he needs accommodation with more rooms and closer to the highway and town centre so that his disabled child can be collected by taxis and school transport.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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. Mr X says he is on the Council housing register under band 2 with a need for a 3-bedroom property. The Council offered him a 3-bedroom house in his area of choice but he says it was unsuitable because it was too far from the highway where taxis and buses could pick up his disabled son. He also told the Council it was too small for his son’s disabilities and that the property was located too far from the town centre.
6. The Council told Mr X that the property was a standard 3-bedroom Council property and that it represented most of the housing stock which does not have either a driveway or on-street reserved parking. There is a high demand for 3 -bedroom homes and it would be some time before another vacancy occurred. Mr X could have explored the possibility of having a disabled parking bay provided and adaptations to the property but he refused it even though it was in his area of choice.
7. 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.
8. The Council made the offer which met the identified housing priority for Mr X’s application. If he wishes to challenge his banding priority he could ask the Council to review this under s.166A of the housing Act 1996. The Council made the offer according to its housing allocations scheme and Mr X remains on the list with one further offer available in future.
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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and an offer of accommodation. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask the Council for a review of his application under the Housing Act 1996.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman