Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council delayed dealing with her transfer application, it failed to consider all the relevant information and it delayed completing its final complaint response and its review. This is because the injustice Miss B has suffered as a result of the Council’s delays is not significant enough to justify our further involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss B, complained that the Council delayed dealing with her transfer application, it failed to consider all the relevant information and it delayed completing its final complaint response and its review. Miss B told us waiting for a decision has caused her more physical pain. That is because she has decided to have surgery but this cannot happen until she moves to larger accommodation. She says if she can move to a one bedroom flat, she would then be able to ask a friend to stay to look after her.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Miss B provided, her comments on my draft decision and the Council’s review of its decision not to award medical priority to Miss B’s transfer application.

Back to top

What I found

5. Miss B applied for a transfer for medical reasons. The Council has accepted it delayed responding to her complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process and in reviewing its decision not to award medical priority to her application. It has apologised to Miss B for its delays.
6. When the Council responded to Miss B’s complaint in September 2019 it said it did not have sufficient information to assess her application at first. But it accepted it had failed to follow up its request to Miss B’s GP for more information when it had not received a reply. The Council said it had followed up its request to Miss B’s GP in July 2019 and received a reply just over a month later.
7. The Council completed its review of its decision not to award medical priority in late November 2019. But, while it has agreed to register Miss B on its transfer list, it did not agree to award medical priority. It has backdated her application to March 2019 so her application date is unaffected by the delay in its process.
8. The Council has considered the information Miss B provided and explained to her why it has decided not to award medical priority. The Council has considered all the relevant information in this case so that means we cannot question whether its decision is right or wrong.
9. Miss B has had to go to the trouble of complaining to the Council and the Ombudsman about the Council’s delays. She has also suffered considerable uncertainty while she has been waiting to find out if her application will have medical priority. However, the Council ultimately decided not to change its decision. So, even if there had not been delay by the Council, in the absence of medical priority, it is unlikely Miss B would have been able to move to larger accommodation more quickly. In those circumstances, the injustice Miss B has suffered as a result of the Council’s delays is not significant enough to justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Miss B has suffered as a result of the Council’s delays is not significant enough to justify our further involvement.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman