The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on Miss X’s housing priority. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing priority review. Miss X says she feels helpless and depressed when all she wants to do is help her child. Miss X wants the Council to consider the evidence again.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X requested a review of her housing priority from the Council. She lives with her child who has mobility issues and there are stairs to access the property.
Miss X provided evidence of her child’s condition in the form of clinic attendance letters detailing her child’s condition and possible treatment. She also provided a letter of support from a senior teacher who believed a move of home would be beneficial.
The Council reviewed Miss X’s priority and considered the evidence provided, but her banding remained the same. The Council advised Miss X that any further medical assessments or stronger evidence could result in a higher banding.
Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council followed its allocations policy in deciding Miss X’s housing priority banding. It also properly considered the information provided by Miss X and explained the reasons for its decision. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.
The Council have confirmed it has since awarded Discretionary Band 1, which is the highest banding.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman