Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council failed to help her to get adaptations to her home in 2010, failed to award medical priority to her application in 2017 and then failed to backdate the priority banding of her application beyond July 2020. This is because there are not compelling enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider the late part of her complaint and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision in 2020.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained that the Council failed to help her to get adaptations to her home in 2010, failed to award medical priority to her application in 2017 and then failed to backdate the priority banding of her application beyond July 2020. Miss B told us every day she and her family remain in their current home is a struggle and stressful for all of them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. 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

6. I have considered the information Miss B provided. Miss B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Miss B told us, following an occupational therapist’s report in 2010, the Council failed to offer a grant to adapt her home which she rents from a social landlord. The Council has told her it did not receive the occupational therapist’s report. Miss B said the Council failed to follow up the matter.
8. In 2017 Miss B asked the Council to award medical priority to her housing application because her home had not been adapted. She said she told the Council about the medical conditions of family members. When it responded to Miss B’s complaint the Council said it had considered the information she had provided when it reviewed her application in 2017. Miss B told us the Council failed to give a good explanation for its negative response and failed to arrange another occupational therapy assessment.
9. In 2020 Miss B made a further request to the Council for medical priority. She also self-referred her case to an occupational therapist. She told us the occupational therapist did a telephone assessment and, following that, the Council awarded Band 2 medical priority to her application. Miss B asked the Council to backdate the new medical priority but the Council refused to do so.
10. To put things right Miss B wants the Council to backdate her priority banding to 2017, if not to 2010. This would then enable her to move from her current accommodation more quickly.
11. Miss B has not complained to us in time about what happened in 2010 and 2017. Too much time has elapsed for us to investigate effectively now whether there was fault by the Council more than three years ago and, if so, how that would have affected Miss B and her family. In these circumstances, there are not compelling enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider this part of Miss B’s complaint.
12. In 2020 the Council awarded higher priority to Miss B’s application but did not agree to backdate the new priority award. In its final response to Miss B’s complaint the Council said it had considered and reviewed Miss B’s circumstances. It listed the information it had considered which included the points Miss B had brought to its attention. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision in 2020 not to backdate its medical priority award. So there is no basis for us to recommend a further review by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there are not compelling enough reasons for us to exercise discretion to consider the late part of the complaint and there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision in 2020.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman