Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council not giving her housing application higher priority and not letting her bid for bungalows. She says this has caused distress when she is already unwell, and she fears any non-bungalow property the Council might offer her will not improve her situation.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council refused Miss X’s request for higher priority for social housing and to let her bid for bungalows, not just flats. Miss X used her right to ask the Council to review its position. The Council reviewed but did not change its position.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not normally for us to decide how much priority someone’s housing application should have, or what type of property they are eligible for. Our role, as paragraph 3 explained, is to consider how the Council reached its decision.
8. Miss X wanted the Council to increase her priority banding on the housing register. The Council decided not to do so. It confirmed this decision when it reviewed the matter. The Council was entitled to make that decision, which seems in line with the information it had about Miss X’s circumstances and with what its housing allocation policy says about different levels of priority. I do not see enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached that decision to warrant investigating.
9. Miss X also wanted the Council to consider her for social housing bungalows, not just flats. The Council’s policy usually reserves bungalows for people aged over 60, which Miss X is not. Miss X put forward reasons related to her health. The Council’s review decision letter shows its review panel considered Miss X’s arguments, the medical evidence Miss X supplied and the Council’s policy, including the discretion the policy gave to depart from the age limit for bungalows. The Council decided against making Miss X eligible for bungalows. The Council gave reasons for its decision, related to information it had about Miss X and its policy. That was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
10. Overall, the Council’s decisions on these points seem properly reached, so we cannot criticise them, although Miss X can disagree with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decisions about the priority band and whether to consider Miss X for bungalows. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman