The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an inevstigation.
The complaint
Miss B complained that the Council unfairly denied her housing priority. As a result, she complained that her mental health has deteriorated in her present living accommodation.
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
Miss B complained applied to the Council’s housing register because she said that she needed to relocate, because anti-social behaviour occurring near her housing association home was worsening her mental health. However, she did not provide evidence from a clinician that relocating would improve her mental health.
The Council told Miss B that she did not qualify for the housing register because she was adequately housed in her current social housing home. Section 2.5 of the Council’s Allocations Policy states that ‘a person whose circumstances do not meet the criteria of any of the Priority Bands set down in Appendix 1’ is ‘…deemed not to qualify for Bucks Home Choice’. Appendix 1, Band C, paragraph 2 sets the minimum medical threshold as a ‘…need to move on medical grounds because [the applicant’s] current home is having an adverse impact on the health of a member of …her current accommodation and their health will not deteriorate in their current accommodation, but the adverse impact will be significantly reduced with a move to more suitable accommodation.’
There was no evidence that she had involved the Police or that the matters she complained about were specific to her circumstances rather than affecting the area and building as a whole. She could complain to the Housing Ombudsman service if she believes her landlord has failed to take sufficient action over anti-social behaviour.
The Council also stated that it would be willing to reassess her housing priority, if necessary medical evidence was provided to support a review of her application.
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman