Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing medical priority for Miss X’s housing application. The evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision and if there was any delay, that did not in itself cause significant injustice

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council refused medical priority for her housing application and took over a year to review the decision. She says this resulted in her remaining in unsuitable housing.

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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council’s housing allocations policy says medical priority normally arises when “The housing situation seriously adversely affects health; and the property cannot reasonably be adapted to meet needs and thereby causes the need to move.”
8. The Council’s review decision letter in October 2022 confirmed the Council’s decision not to award medical priority. That letter referred to relevant parts of the policy. It set out the Council’s understanding of Miss X’s housing circumstances and her medical conditions, referred to advice from the Council’s medical adviser and gave reasons for the Council’s conclusion that, while Miss X had health problems, her circumstances did not meet the threshold for medical priority.
9. The evidence indicates the Council properly reached its decision, based on relevant information and after followed the appropriate process. Therefore, as paragraph 3 explained, I cannot criticise the decision, albeit Miss X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
10. Miss X said the Council took over a year to consider her review. Miss X provided evidence she sought a review in July 2021. However, the Council’s review decision in October 2022 said it was a review of a decision made on 30 June 2022. That suggests there was more than one review request, so the Council does not seem to have taken over a year to deal with a single review request. Anyway, the Council’s review decision was that Miss X did not qualify for medical priority. As explained above, I do not fault that decision. So any delay by the Council did not in itself disadvantage Miss X significantly enough to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to pursuing this part of the complaint.
11. Separately, the Council advised Miss X that, as a Council tenant, she could apply for a transfer from her current home to a one-bedroom property. I cannot comment on this point as it is about the Council’s provision and management of its social housing, so the restriction in paragraph 4 applies to this point.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision. If there was any delay, that did not in itself cause Miss X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman