Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint that the Council has refused to help her to move to more suitable accommodation on health grounds. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs C, complained that the Council has refused to help her to move to more suitable accommodation on health grounds.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

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 information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mrs C has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs C told us she sent a rehousing on health grounds form to the Council with a doctor’s supporting letter but the Council did not agree to move her application into a higher priority group. Mrs C asked for a review of that decision. After completing its review, the Council decided Mrs C’s application would remain in its current band.
8. Mrs C told us, since she moved in, her current home has not been suitable because of the health conditions she and her children suffer from. She said the property exacerbates their symptoms which are getting worse.
9. Every local housing authority must publish a housing allocation scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make their allocations of social housing in accordance with their published scheme. We are not an appeal body with powers to overrule a council’s decision on an applicant’s priority. Our role is to look at the way the Council has reached its decision. If there is not enough evidence of fault by a council we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong.
10. The Council’s housing allocation scheme says it will only award priority on health or disability grounds if a member of the applicant’s household has a severe long-term limiting illness or a permanent and significant disability and their health or quality of life is severely affected by the home they live in.
11. In its review decision letter the Council recognised Mrs C met the first part of its test for additional priority. But, although it considered the information Mrs C had provided, it decided her home did not have such a severely detrimental effect to meet the threshold of the second part of the test.
12. In reaching its decision the Council considered all relevant matters. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way it reached its decision. That means we cannot question whether the Council’s decision not to award additional priority was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman