Summary: A woman complained that the Council had unfairly refused her request for a transfer to a property where she does not have other residents living above or below her accommodation. But we will not investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complained that the Council had unreasonably refused to recommend her for a transfer on medical grounds from her current council flat to a property where she had no neighbours above or below. Miss X felt the Council should have made this recommendation because it had failed to resolve issues of persistent noise nuisance, harassment and other anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her current neighbours in the flats above and beneath hers, which have seriously impacted on her health. Miss X also said the Council had ignored the opinions of medical professionals in making its decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. 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, Schedule 5.5 (as amended)]

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Miss X and the Council. I also took account of the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X has made various complaints to the Council about ASB from her immediate neighbours in recent years. Miss X also provided the Council with information about the detrimental impact this was having on her and her adult son’s health, including supporting letters from her GP and other medical professionals involved in their case.
6. Last year the Council referred Miss X’s medical information for assessment by its Medical Team. The resulting recommendation was that Miss X should have Band 2 priority on medical grounds and should only be considered for ground floor accommodation. But the medical adviser did not make any directions about the type of property Miss X should be offered.
7. Miss X then complained to the Council about the unfairness of its medical assessment. Miss X said that, based on her supporting medical evidence, she should have been recommended for a house, or possibly a maisonette, with an outside space and no residents above or below. But in response the Council said it was satisfied its housing recommendations accurately reflected Miss X’s assessed medical needs.
8. We consider if there is fault in the way a council makes its decisions. But we are not an appeal body about the merits of properly made decisions. So we cannot question the outcome if there is no fault in a council’s decision making. As regards housing register applications, we are unlikely to find fault with a council’s assessment of an application if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
9. But having considered the information Miss X submitted in support of her medical case and the Council’s assessment of this information, I am not convinced there is sign of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify us starting an investigation of her complaint.
10. In particular, from the copies of the medical evidence the Council sent me, it is clear that the medical professionals in Miss X’s case are fully supportive of her transfer on medical grounds. But I did not see any specific recommendation that she should be moved to a property with no residents above or below her. In the circumstances I do not see we could justify finding fault with the Council on the basis it ignored or did not take suitable account of the opinions of the medical professionals in her case.
11. As regards Miss X’s preference to be allocated a house, I note that section 4.19 of the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme says that : “Priority for houses will normally only be given to households in Band 1 or households with children under the age of 16…..”. As a result I consider the Council’s decision that Miss X is not eligible for a move to a house is in line with its published allocations policy, and there is also no sign of fault on its part in this respect.
12. Miss X’s complaint to us also referred to bias, bullying and untrue claims by the Council’s ASB Team.
13. But we do not have power to investigate complaints about councils when they are carrying out their role as landlords of their housing properties. The ASB Team is part of the Council’s housing management service. Therefore the legal restriction on us investigating issues about how councils manage their social housing, which I refer to in paragraph 3, applies to this part of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council has unfairly refused to recommend her for a transfer to a property where she does not have other residents living above and below her accommodation. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council to warrant us pursuing this matter any further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman