The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority given to Miss X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council has not given her housing application Band A priority. Her application is in Band B. Miss X says this means she and her children remain in overcrowded, unsuitable housing, which causes stress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council. I considered relevant parts of the Council’s housing allocations policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council’s medical assessor said Miss X’s family has an urgent medical need to move to a larger home because two of her children need their own bedrooms for medical reasons, but Miss X’s current home is too small for either of them to have their own room. The Council’s housing allocations policy says people with an urgent medical or welfare need to move should have Band B priority.
Miss X wants Band A priority. However, the only medical ground for getting Band A priority is a life-threatening medical emergency severely adversely affected by the current housing. That does not apply here.
An applicant can also get Band A priority if the Council’s children’s social services section advises the housing section that rehousing will prevent the likelihood of significant harm to a child, which must relate to the safety of a child and to specific aspects of the current accommodation. Just because children have medical needs does not necessarily mean they need social services involvement. Even where there is such involvement, the threshold for Band A is high, as a ‘likelihood of significant harm’ would mean the Council having child protection involvement with the family. The Council says its children’s services section is not directly involved with Miss X’s children and has not referred the matter to the housing section. Miss X is dissatisfied with that, but I see no reason to believe the Council wrongly reached this view.
The Council considered if any other grounds for being in Band A applied to Miss X. It decided they did not.
Overall, the Council’s position is based on considering information from Miss X, her circumstances and the Council’s housing allocations policy. Therefore the evidence suggests Council properly reached its position. That means I cannot criticise the Council’s decision, although Miss X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because investigation is unlikely to find any fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman