Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award Mr X medical priority on its housing register. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not award him medical priority on its housing register despite the fact he received personal independence payments.

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 or continue 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 Mr X and the Council which includes Mr X’s complaint letter, health and housing assessment and correspondence from the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council operates a housing scheme which allows residents to bid for available properties according to their priority status banding, with A being the highest priority band. Mr X is currently assessed as priority band D.
6. Mr X applied to the Council for medical priority as he has various health conditions and is a carer for one of his parents. He also receives personal independence payments (PIP).
7. The Council declined Mr X’s application, explaining that Mr X did not meet the criteria for medical priority. Mr X appealed the decision, and the Council maintained its decision. Mr X then brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as he did not believe the Council properly considered his health needs in its decision making.
8. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits or outcome of a decision the Council has made, provided the Council has acted in line with its policy. The evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s medical needs and caring responsibilities against the qualifying criteria and decided he did not meet the criteria. The Council was entitled to make this decision and there is no evidence of fault in the way it made this decision. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s response to Mr X’s application.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman