Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his complaint about his transfer request. This is because the injustice he suffered because of the way the Council dealt with his complaint is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, has complained about the length of time the Council took to consider his complaint about his transfer request and that it misunderstood the evidence he had presented. He told us this has added to the stress he is experiencing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us the Council is fully aware of his medical condition. But he says the officers who considered his complaint could not have been more unsympathetic in the way they treated him. He said they failed to show an understanding of the effect of his current housing on his medical condition. Mr B told us, no matter how much evidence he supplied, the officers failed to accept he needed ground floor accommodation only. He said they regarded this as a preference rather than a need.
6. There was no delay by the Council in its consideration of Mr B’s complaint at stage one of its complaint process. In its final response to Mr B’s complaint the Council apologised for taking a little longer than it had expected to reply at that stage. The Council said it had placed Mr B’s application into its highest priority band in July 2019. The Council told Mr B it had sought advice from its medical advisor in 2019. The medical advisor had recommended the Council should only allocate ground floor or lifted property to Mr B. Mr B contacted the Council again in July 2020. He provided a copy of a letter from his consultant. The consultant’s view was a property on an upper floor with a lift would not be suitable for Mr B. Instead, he needed housing on the ground floor. But the Council’s medical advisor re-confirmed his 2019 advice.
7. Following further contact from Mr B, in February 2021 a senior council officer exercised discretion and took a decision the Council would only offer ground floor accommodation to Mr B.
8. To put things right Mr B wants the Council to look at his complaint more sympathetically, to uphold it because he feels that might make housing officers understand his critical situation and to apologise to him for the way officers have treated him.
9. We do not normally investigate complaints about the way a council has dealt with a complaint if we are not investigating the issue which gave rise to the complaint. Mr B had complained to the Council about the length of time it was taking for him to move to suitable accommodation. When the Council replied to Mr B’s complaint it said 43 applicants in the same priority band had been waiting for rehousing longer than him. Of those, there were three applicants with band one medical priority who had been waiting longer than him. That means, even if there was fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr B’s complaint, it is unlikely he would have been able to move to suitable ground floor accommodation sooner. The Council has now agreed it will only allocate ground floor accommodation to Mr B which has addressed the point which was at issue. The injustice Mr B has suffered because of the way the Council dealt with his complaint is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr B suffered because of the way the Council dealt with his complaint is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman