Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to give her any medical priority for her housing application. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council failing to give her medical priority on her housing application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X applied for a medical assessment for her housing application in July 2019. The Council sent her a letter informing her of the outcome later that month after she was told the outcome was that no medical priority was awarded. Miss X says she did not receive the letter and complained about the decision.
5. The Council sent Miss X a copy of the letter with its decision on her complaint. It told her that her medical circumstances did not meet the requirements of its medical assessors for priority due to housing need. The Council told her that she could submit further information if she wished to have her medical assessment reconsidered. In January Miss X submitted a new medical assessment form with the latest information relating to her medical problems. The Council wrote to her and informed her that its assessment remained unchanged because it did not affect her housing needs. The Council told her that she could ask for the decision to be reviewed if she remained dissatisfied.
6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. The Council’s medical advisors assess medical circumstances in relation to an applicant’s housing needs. We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the applicant thinks that the council should have given more priority to your application to move.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman