The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of his application if he had new evidence about his circumstances.
The complaint
|Me X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application priority. He says that he was only considered to be eligible to bid for studio flats based on his points allocation priority. He had a medical assessment in 2024 which he says should have given him priority for a 1-bedroom flat.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X was accepted by the Council under the main homelessness duty and was placed in temporary accommodation. He made a complaint to us about the suitability of his accommodation which was the subject of an earlier investigation under case reference 24015485. He applied to the Council’s housing register but he says he was only considered to be eligible to bid on studio flats.
Mr X says he needs the minimum of a 1-bedroom flat so that a relative can provide care for him. The Council carried out a medical assessment in 2024 but it did not conclude that he required 1-bedroom accommodation.
Persons applying to a council’s housing register can ask for a review of their application priority if they believe they have information which has not been taken into account under previous assessments. It was reasonable for Mr X to provide further evidence of his medical needs if he believed the assessment of his priority was incorrect.
In its response to our enquiries the Council has informed us that Mr X has since been rehoused in permanent accommodation.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of his application if he had new evidence about his circumstances.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman