Summary: On the information available, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has wrongly assessed his priority for its social housing register. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault and any injustice caused by the Council’s delay is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has wrongly assessed his priority for its social housing register. He says he should have higher priority because of the effect his current home has on his mental 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 we would find fault or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 considered the information provided by Mr X’s representatives in their complaint and the Council’s responses to them.
5. I also considered extra information provided by the Council and Mr X’s representatives in response my requests.
6. I sent a copy of my decision to Mr X’s representatives, who now have an opportunity to comment on it. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Mr X is a private tenant and has limited mobility which makes it difficult for him to access his first floor flat, since there is no lift.
8. Mr X applied to join the Council’s social housing register in June 2019 and the Council placed him in ‘Band C’ due to “Lacking or sharing facilities in [his] accommodation.”
9. With the help of his representatives, Mr X asked the Council to review his priority in December 2019. He said his priority should be higher because of the difficulties he had in accessing his home and how this made his medical problems worse.
10. The Council reviewed Mr X’s priority and decided, in July 2020, that his priority was correct. As part of the review, the Council asked its medical adviser to consider Mr X’s priority. The medical adviser suggested that Band C priority would be correct due to Mr X’s difficulty using the stairs.
11. Mr X disagrees with the decision. He says being unable to access his home makes him feel trapped and causes him to feel suicidal, so he should be in a higher band.

The Council’s allocations policy

12. The Council’s allocation policy says:
• “Where an applicant’s current housing is detrimental to their health, or a move to more suitable accommodation would have a positive effect on their health, they may ask to be awarded medical priority”,
• “Applicants who have an urgent need to move because they have a critical medical condition or very serious disability that is being made much worse by their current housing will be placed in Bands A or B.” and
• “Applications for medical priority will be considered by the Council’s specialist housing teams which will assess the extent to which the applicant’s health is affected by their housing conditions and the expected benefits of providing suitable alternative housing.”

Analysis

13. When Mr X’s representatives asked the Council to review his medical priority, they explained to the Council how Mr X’s mobility was limited, and this made it difficult to access his home.
14. While depression and a historic suicidal attempt were mentioned in the list of Mr X’s medical conditions, I have not seen any evidence the Council was told that the difficulty in accessing his property was significantly worsening Mr X’s mental health. It is open to Mr X to now ask the Council to review his medical priority for this specific reason.
15. The evidence shows the Council followed its policy and assessed Mr X’s medical priority in line with the policy. It considered the information Mr X and his representatives had provided and sought the advice of its medical adviser. Therefore, we would be unlikely to find fault with how the Council made its decision.
16. The Council’s policy says it will respond to requests for a review within 56 days. Although the Council took longer to respond to the review, it has apologised and I do not consider the delay caused Mr X a significant injustice, given that the outcome of the review was that Mr X’s priority was already correct.

Back to top

Draft decision

17. Subject to any comments Mr X or his representatives might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault and any injustice caused by the Council’s delay is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman