Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s priority for housing. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision, so we cannot criticise the decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council gave his housing application inadequate medical priority. He says this means he has to remain in a flat he finds it difficult to get in and out of and he feels he has to spend more time staying in crowded conditions at a relative’s home.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and I looked at the Council’s housing lettings policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X lives in a first-floor flat only accessible by stairs. His medical conditions cause him mobility difficulties and breathing difficulties. He asked the Council to give his housing application more priority because of his medical problems.
6. The Council gave Mr X Band B priority, which is for ‘high medical priority’ where the current housing worsens a serious medical condition or disability, where the applicant is not housebound, and their life is not at risk due to the current housing. Mr X wants Band A priority. That is for ‘urgent medical need’ where the current housing substantially worsens a severe medical condition or disability, including where someone’s life is at risk due to their current housing conditions or where they are completely housebound because of their accommodation.
7. The Council says the evidence Mr X provided was a letter from his physiotherapist about his mobility and breathing difficulties. Mr X sent us a copy of the physiotherapist’s letter. The Council says an officer and the Council’s independent medical adviser judged the information from the physiotherapist merited giving Mr X’s application Band B priority. They did not believe Band A was justified.
8. As paragraph 2 explained, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body for decisions people disagree with. We can only consider whether the Council reached its decision properly.
9. Having seen the medical information, I can understand why Council took the view it did. Mr X’s complaint to us said he has great difficulty getting down the stairs to leave his flat, but he did not suggest he was completely housebound. He also said he feared not being able to escape in time from a fire. However, the evidence from the physiotherapist did not refer to that, nor does it seem likely this point in itself would meet the high threshold for Band A priority.
10. The evidence suggests the Council reached its decision based on the information it had and on its policy. Therefore the decision seems properly reached, so I cannot criticise it, as paragraph 2 explained, although Mr X is entitled to disagree with the decision.
11. Mr X says being in Band B limits his chance of bidding successfully. That might well be the case, but that is a result of there being more applicants than available social housing properties. It does not mean the Council was at fault for giving Mr X Band B rather than Band A.
12. The Council says if Mr X has more medical information, he can supply it and the Council will consider his priority again.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman