Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a review of Mr X’s housing allocation. That is because Mr X can ask the Council for a new assessment of his housing needs, therefore, there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to:
• properly consider his mental health and the affects of anti-social behaviour after he asked for a review of its housing decision.
• ask his GP for information about his medical needs; and
• provide information about how it assesses medical conditions.
2. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint. He wants the Council to improve its communication, follow its policy and respond to his concerns about complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about information the Council provides on how it assesses medical conditions. The Council publishes its housing allocations policy online. That explains how it assesses whether an applicant has a housing medical priority. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
7. Although Mr X is unhappy the Council did not contact his GP when it assessed his housing application, the Council’s allocations policy does not state it will contact applicants GPs in every case. It states the Medical Adviser may request additional information if required. Additionally, it states the Council may ask the applicant to get information from relevant professionals if necessary. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to contact Mr X’s GP to justify investigating.
8. Mr X said the Council failed to properly consider his mental health needs when it reviewed his housing application. However, since the Council reviewed Mr X’s housing banding, he has provided further medical evidence to the Council. He has also asked the Council to review its decision that he needs an adapted property. Given Mr X has new medical information for consideration and wants the Council to review the type of property best suited to his needs, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council has confirmed Mr X can ask for a new assessment based on medical need or change of circumstances. There is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation.
9. Mr X is unhappy about how the Council responded to his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints handling where we are not looking at the substantive matter, therefore we will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council completed a housing review. Mr X has new information he wants the Council to consider which requires a new assessment. Therefore, there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by our investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman