Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s medical priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council should give her higher priority on the housing register because she has health problems.

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 an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (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 read the complaint and the Council’s response. I considered the medical evidence Ms X submitted to the Council. I invited Ms X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing register

5. The Council places people in bands on the housing register to help it determine priority for housing. Band A is the top band. The Council places people in band B if their housing conditions are having a major adverse effect on their health. It places them in band C if the housing conditions have an adverse effect on their health. The Council also places people in band C if they are living in overcrowding conditions.

What happened

6. Ms X moved to her current home in 2016. It is a one bedroom first floor flat. She lives there with her young child. Later in 2016 Ms X applied to join the housing register. The Council accepted the application and placed her in band C because she needs another bedroom.
7. In 2019 Ms X applied for medical priority. Ms X has a medical condition which makes her joints painful. She finds it painful and difficult to walk up the stairs to her flat. She submitted medical evidence which included hospital letters, proof of having a Blue Badge and proof that she receives a disability benefit. The Council awarded medical priority because it accepts the flat has an adverse effect on Ms X’s health. Ms X remained in band C.
8. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. Sher thinks she should be in a higher band because of the pain she experiences in climbing the stairs and walking from the car park.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council considered Ms X’s application for medical priority and awarded band C because it accepts her housing situation has an adverse effect on her health. But, it did not accept her housing conditions have a major adverse effect which would be needed for Ms X to qualify for band B. I have considered the evidence Ms X submitted, and the allocations policy, and the decision to keep Ms X in band C is consistent with both. Ms X has medical problems but the decision that her home is having an adverse effect on her health is consistent with the evidence.
10. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and he cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman