Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to award her housing application a medical priority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to award her housing application a medical priority.

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))
3. 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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X is staying in her daughter’s house. As she finds it hard to manage stairs and suffers from dizzy spells, Mrs X is sleeping on a sofa downstairs. Mrs X also suffers from epilepsy and is worried about having a seizure.
7. Mrs X provided the Council with her medical evidence to show her medical conditions and medication she is taking. She also explained to the Council she was sleeping on a sofa due to being unable to manage the stairs.
8. The Council completed a medical assessment and decided Mrs X was not eligible for medical priority. This was because while the medical advisor noted Mrs X did have medical conditions, the evidence provided did not show Mrs X was permanently dependent on mobility aids or that her medical conditions were severe enough to preclude the use of stairs. The medical advisor also noted Mrs X’s concerns of being isolated but noted that did not warrant medical priority. I am satisfied the medical assessment properly considered all the evidence Mrs X submitted.
9. Mrs X appealed and the Council reassessed. The Council’s decision remained the same, with the advisor again noting there was no evidence to suggest Mrs X was in receipt of, or requires, permanent mobility aids or that stairs would not be manageable. Again, I am satisfied the medical assessment properly considered all the evidence Mrs X submitted.
10. The Council’s allocations policy sets out the criteria for medical priority. For medical priority banding 1, this can be awarded where the applicant:
• Has a life-threatening illness or progressive condition being made significantly worse by their current house.
• Is housebound due to internal or external stairs or steps at their current property.
11. For medical priority 2 banding, this can be awarded where the applicant:
• Has a condition requiring ongoing medical treatment, being severely exacerbated by current housing.
• Has a condition causing a significant reduction in mobility when combined with stairs or property location.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault. This is because the Council followed the proper decision-making process by appropriately completing a medical assessment. Further, the Council’s decision not to award a medical priority was made in line with its policy.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman