Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council handled the complainant’s request for medical priority with her housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way the Council assessed her application for medical priority with her housing application. Ms X wants an apology and for the Council to award backdated medical priority.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes Ms X’s request for medical priority and the subsequent correspondence. I also considered the allocations policy and our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council can award medical priority if someone’s housing has a significant impact on a medical condition.
5. Ms X lives in un-lifted accommodation on an upper floor. While she was pregnant she applied for medical priority; she explained her pregnancy made it hard to manage the stairs and had caused mental health difficulties. Ms X said she had fortnightly phone appointments to help address this. She explained her counsellor would not provide written evidence. Ms X said her problems with the stairs would continue after the birth as she would have to carry the buggy and other items.
6. The Council considered the advice from its medical adviser and Ms X’s evidence. The Council noted there was no evidence that Ms X’s condition is severe or unstable enough to warrant urgent or enhanced care. It decided not to award medical priority. It placed Ms X in band D because she lacks a bedroom.
7. Ms X disagrees with the decision. She says she never referred to having severe problems or enhanced care and alleges this shows the Council has not assessed her as individual and has applied a template type approach. Ms X accused the Council of gate keeping.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X had difficulties with the stairs while pregnant and the stairs continue to present a challenge with the baby. But, I have not seen any suggestion of fault in the way the Council assessed the application. It considered the information from Ms X and the advice from the medical advisor and decided the evidence does not show Ms X meets the threshold for medical priority as defined by the policy. The comment about enhanced care does not indicate a template type approach but reflects that for medical priority there must be evidence of the impact of the housing conditions on a person’s significant medical problems.
9. Ms X disagrees with the decision but we do not act as an appeal body and it is not our role to decide if someone is eligible for medical priority.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman