Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his request for a transfer on medical and harassment grounds. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained about the way the Council dealt with his request for a transfer on medical and harassment grounds.

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
• 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 Mr B provided, the Council’s responses to his complaint and review request, the Council’s correspondence with Mr B’s councillors and MP and its Housing Allocation Policy. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the additional information he provided before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us he has been trying to get an urgent transfer since 2018 for medical reasons and because he has experienced harassment. He has provided medical information to the Council in support of his transfer application. He told us his current accommodation is too small and has only one toilet. He has explained how the lack of an additional toilet affects members of his family who have a medical condition. He said the Council is neglecting him and his family. He told us his family’s lives are in danger, they have suffered damage to their cars, he has received death threats and been the subject of false accusations.
6. Having considered the medical information Mr B provided, the Council decided it was not sufficient to show the medical condition of family members is so severe a second toilet is required. So the Council did not award reasonable priority on medical grounds. Mr B requested a review of the Council’s decision and provided further information to support his request. But, on review, the Council decided its original decision was correct.
7. Mr B has provided information to the Council in support of his transfer request because of harassment. In its final response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said he did not meet the requirement for emergency re-housing on harassment grounds. The Council said it will only consider emergency rehousing if the police believe that a tenant's life or limb is at risk. It said it did not have such intelligence or evidence to suggest this was the case.
8. Mr B said he wants us to put pressure on the council urgently so he can move to a bigger home with an extra toilet in a different area. A complaint to us is not the same as an appeal against a council decision on the priority it gives to housing applications. We have no powers to overrule the Council’s decision and substitute our own. We look at the way a council reaches its decisions. In this case the Council has taken the steps we would expect. It has considered the information Mr B provided in reaching its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify the Ombudsman investigating this complaint. We could not achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking.
9. Mr B has recently provided further information to the Council to support his request for an urgent transfer. We would expect the Council to consider this information.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman