Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to give her housing application sufficient priority. She says the lift is frequently inoperative in the block of flats where she lives, and this makes it difficult for her to access her flat up four flights of stairs with a young child and a pushchair. she wants to be placed in a higher banding because of the mental stress this is causing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says she lives in a block of flats where the lift is frequently inoperative. She lives on the second floor which has four flights of stairs above ground level. She says this causes problems when the lift is broken and she has to use stairs with her young daughter, a pushchair or shopping. She submitted a medical self-assessment form to the Council to seek medical priority because of the effect of the lift faults on her mental health.
7. The Council reviewed her application, and its independent medical advisors assessed her case. The Council told her that she does not qualify for medical priority because she does not have a health condition which affects her ability to use stairs. It told her that the lift reliability is a repair issue which her landlord should address and that she does not have a condition which requires alternative housing.
8. We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the applicant believes that the council should have given more priority to the application to move. It may be the case that, although they need to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need.
9. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest Mrs X should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman