Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing medical priority for Ms X’s housing application. Investigation is unlikely to find fault undermining the decision-making. The Council adequately remedied the impact of its delay reviewing its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not give medical priority to her housing application. She says this adversely affects her and her daughter as they continue having to share a bedroom where Ms X’s medical conditions disturb her and her daughter’s sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council’s housing allocations policy is to put each application on a list according to what the Council decides the applicant’s most relevant housing need is. There are separate lists for people needing to move on overcrowding and medical grounds. The Council does not award cumulative priority within each list. So, for example, someone on the overcrowding priority list cannot also have medical priority. There is no fault in the Council having such a policy. Councils do not need to have all applicants on a single list, or to award cumulative priority.
7. Ms X has a two-bedroomed property and has children of opposite sexes. She and her daughter share a bedroom because Ms X reports her living room cannot be used for sleeping for practical and safety reasons. Ms X has medical conditions affecting her sleep, so sharing a bedroom causes problems.
8. Ms X applied for rehousing on overcrowding and medical grounds. It was for the Council to decide whether to put Ms X’s application on the overcrowding or medical priority list. It decided not to give medical priority. It put the application on the overcrowding list, which it considers most relevant to her circumstances.
9. As paragraph 3 explained, I cannot criticise a decision that was properly reached. Here:
• the number of bedrooms and the number of people in Ms X’s current home mean it is undoubtedly overcrowded under the Council’s policy and
• the medical factors (the impact of the medical conditions due to sharing a bedroom) directly relate to the overcrowding, because if Ms X and her daughter were not sharing a bedroom due to overcrowding, the medical conditions would not be having that impact.
10. So the Council judged the medical-related housing problem stemmed from the overcrowding, therefore it considered the overcrowding list more appropriate than the medical list. Ms X’s application is on the overcrowding priority list with the correct number of points for her bedroom need.
11. The Council’s decision seems properly reached, based on the Council’s policy and its understanding of Ms X’s circumstances. I appreciate why Ms X is dissatisfied. However, that does not enable me to criticise the Council’s decision, as paragraph 3 explained.
12. Ms X doubts she has a real chance of moving with her current level of points. That does not in itself mean the Council is at fault. Rather, it reflects the shortage of properties becoming available compared with the level of demand. The Council has no duty actually to give Ms X social housing. Its duty is just to consider Ms X and other applicants for vacant social housing in line with the Council’s policy.
13. The Council accepted it took too long to review its decision not to give medical priority. The Council apologised and offered Ms X £60 for that. The review decision maintained the Council’s decision not to give medical priority, so the delay did not affect the application in practical terms. The delay caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. Any investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to result in a significantly different recommendation than the apology and payment the Council offered on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any investigation is unlikely to find fault undermining the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman