Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority band awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider the harassment she is suffering in her current property when deciding not to award additional priority on its housing register. As a result, Ms X says she remains in unsuitable housing that is significantly affecting her sleep and mental health.

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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council accepted Ms X’s application to join its housing register in July 2023. It said she met the criteria for band 3 because she was short of one bedroom, but it had reduced this to band 4 due to rent arrears. It explained she could ask for a review of its decision of she disagreed with it.
6. Ms X provided a support letter from Victim Support and the Council re-assessed her application. It made enquiries about reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to its community protection team, which confirmed there were no reports of ASB since July 2022. It also made enquiries of its homelessness team, which confirmed it had considered Ms X’s situation but decided she was not at risk of homelessness. In January 2024, the Council decided Ms X was in the correct priority band. It explained Ms X could ask for a review of that decision.
7. Ms X provided a supporting letter from the police, which referred to historic crime (2004-7) and said Ms X feared reprisals. In February 2024, the Council considered the evidence but decided Ms X was in the correct priority band.
8. In May 2024, the Council reviewed the application, identified the rent arrears had been cleared and placed Ms X in band 3. It explained she could ask for a review of that decision within 21 days if she disagreed with it.
9. In July 2024, Ms X complained. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed it had considered all the evidence Ms X had provided and decided her application was in the correct band. It advised Ms X to report any ASB to the police and its community protection team.

My assessment

10. We are not an appeal body. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions the Council made. The law says Councils must make decisions in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. The Council made a number of decisions with review rights. It was reasonable for Ms X to have asked for a review if she disagreed with the decisions, but she did not do so. We would not usually investigate where a person has review rights that were reasonable for them to use.
12. Further, the Council has considered the evidence she provided, explained its reasons for deciding the relevant priority band and made its decisions without delay. All the decisions referred to were in line with its published scheme. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement, so we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman