The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its consideration of a complaint under its formal complaints procedure. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application priority. He says he did not receive fair consideration of his case under the allocations policy. He made a formal complaint to the council but it refused to progress his complaint to the second stage because it told him he needed to ask for a non-statutory review of the decision under its allocations policy.
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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(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 have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied to the Council for housing. He was assessed as being in Band 2 under the Council’s housing allocations scheme. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s assessment and believes he has sufficient medical needs to warrant Band 1. He says he has a need for a property with a downstairs toilet and that the assessment failed to properly consider his needs.
Mr X submitted a Stage 1 formal complaint and the Council responded to his complaint and explained how the allocations policy operates. It advised him that the only way to challenge a banding priority was to submit a review to the Housing Needs team which assess housing applications.
Mr X asked the Council to progress his complaint to Stage 2 of the complaints procedure but it told him this was not a function of the complaints procedure and that if he had any further details about his medical needs these should be forwarded to the correct team so that they could be added to a review or medical assessment. Mr X complained to us on the Council’s advice.
There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s advice to Mr X on this matter. When someone wishes to challenge a housing application banding decision they have a right to request a review of the decision under s.166A of the Housing Act Part 6. This is not a matter which can be addressed by a Council’s complaints procedure because the non-statutory review is the process to follow under the government guidance on the legislation.
If someone has a review and believes the review procedure was flawed they can complain to us without accessing the complaints procedure because the only way to challenge a non-statutory review is by way of the Ombudsman or by judicial review in the High Court. Council complaints officers cannot carry out medical or housing needs assessments so we would not expect them to comment on a banding decision.
It was reasonable for Mr X to pursue a review of his case. He also stated that the Council’s assessment had failed to address his disability as reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. The review process would consider any disabled housing needs Mr X can provide medical evidence of. He did not specify any adjustments the Council should make in contacting him over his application itself which is a separate matter from his housing needs.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application and its consideration of a complaint under its formal complaints procedure. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman