Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has not awarded him priority on the housing register that accurately reflects the impact of his housing on his health. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that further investigation would result in a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not awarded him priority on the housing register that accurately reflects the impact of his housing on his health. Mr X says that living in his current accommodation is detrimental to his mental and physical health.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information in the complaint and the documents the Council provided.
4. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in May 2019. In his application, he said that the reason he needed to move was the impact of his current accommodation on his health.
6. The Council asked Mr X to complete a medical information form, which he did in June 2019. Mr X also provided information about his physical and mental health conditions.
7. The Council awards priority on the housing register in Bands, where Band A is the highest priority, and allocates available properties to those with the highest priority band who have been waiting the longest. The Council assesses each application in line with its Housing Allocations policy to decide what priority band to award.
8. The Council asked an Independent Medical Advisor (IMA) to assess Mr X’s application and awarded priority band D considering the IMA’s recommendation.
9. In September 2019, Mr X asked the Council to look again at the decision. He pointed out that he needs a ground floor property and priority for ground floor properties is reserved for those in Bands A-C.
10. The Council discussed the application with the IMA and agreed to increase Mr X’s priority to Band C to reflect the degenerative nature of one of his health conditions and his need for a ground floor property. The Council backdated Mr X’s new banding to the date it originally awarded Band D.
11. The Council agreed with Mr X that it had not awarded him a priority banding that accurately reflected his housing needs and the impact of his housing on his health conditions. The Council remedied this by awarding Mr X a higher priority band and backdating it to the date of the original assessment.
12. There is insufficient evidence that Mr X lost out on a realistic prospect of being offered a property in the three months it took the Council to remedy its error. It is unlikely that further investigation by the Ombudsman would result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that further investigation would result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman