Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council placing Miss X in unsuitable accommodation and will not award her medical priority to be rehoused. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation and will not award her medical priority to be rehoused. She says her property is on the fourth floor and she cannot leave without help or assistance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X lives in a wheelchair accessible property on the fourth floor. Miss X placed on bid on this property, which was successful. Miss X accepted the property in 2021.
6. Miss X says the property is not suitable for her as she cannot leave her property without help or assistance. She is also concerned if there was an emergency, she would not be able to exit the building.
7. The Council’s medical advisor considered Miss X’s application to consider whether to award her medical priority to be rehoused. The medical advisor noted:
• Miss X’s property was fully wheelchair adapted.
• Communal front door access was automated and led to a wheelchair step lift. There was one instance where the front door malfunctioned, but this was fixed quickly.
• There was access to two wheelchair accessible lifts, which service reports noted had never been out of service at the same time.
8. The medical advisor noted there was no evidence to show Miss X needed to be rehoused on the ground floor. As Miss X’s property met her needs, she was adequately housed, and so no medical priority was warranted.
9. The Council also noted during its complaint investigation that its occupational therapy team could request automatic door openers for Miss X’s flat door to make it easier for her to access the community independently.
10. An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has shown properly consideration of Miss X’s concerns. However, it has provided its rationale for why Miss X is adequately housed and why it does not agree there is evidence she needs to be rehoused to the ground floor. Where the Council has made its decision properly, the Ombudsman cannot find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman