Summary: Ms B complains the Council has failed to take proper account of her family’s medical needs in determining her priority for permanent accommodation. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council has not properly considered the medical needs of her family in determining the number of points she has for a move to permanent accommodation. She says she has been waiting too long in temporary accommodation and needs to move.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council accepted Ms B as homeless and placed her and her children in temporary accommodation in 2012. Under the Council’s housing allocations policy, Ms B is in Group 4 (homeless families living in temporary accommodation) and she has 600 points because her homelessness application was made prior to the introduction of the Localism Act in 2012.
5. Ms B submitted medical evidence to the Council relating to the medical needs of her family with aim of seeking a higher point score and priority for a quicker move to permanent accommodation. However, in line with the Council’s allocations policy, while it considered the evidence provided, as it did not show that the family are in a life-threatening situation, or that they require a wheelchair adapted home, there has been no change to Ms B’s priority.
6. While the Council’s Mental Health Panel considered Ms B’s case and did not change the number of points she has, it did recommend she be placed on the temporary accommodation transfer list because of the anti-social behaviour of some neighbours. The Council offered to move Ms B to alternative temporary accommodation but Ms B declined the offer as she said she wants her next move to be to permanent accommodation.
7. In responding to Ms B’s complaints about its handling of her case, the Council acknowledged some fault in its communication with her previously but it has explained why she does not meet the criteria for additional points and suggested she continue to bid for properties she is eligible for.

Assessment

8. Ms B’s desire to move to permanent accommodation is understandable. However, as the Council has explained, her family is one of many waiting for accommodation of the size she requires, a third of whom have been waiting longer than she has. It has assessed the medical evidence she has provided but decided the family’s health conditions are not those which would lead to additional points being awarded. This is disappointing for Ms B but it is not evidence of fault by the Council.
9. Ms B says the Council has not properly considered the family’s various health conditions and that it has failed to acknowledge her long-standing mental health problems. However, the Council’s Mental Health Panel considered her case and the evidence she provided. Unfortunately for Ms B, the outcome was not the one she sought although she was offered the opportunity to move to alternative temporary accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman