Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s housing application and his request for medical priority. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his housing application. He says he is not in the correct banding, that he should be awarded medical priority and that his disabilities have not been taken properly into account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied for medical priority for his housing application. The Council considered his case and the evidence he provided but decided he did not qualify for medical priority.
7. His request for a review of this decision was considered by the Medical Assessment Panel. He was given the opportunity to provide additional evidence, but he declined to do so. Having assessed his case, the Panel decided there was insufficient evidence to show that his current accommodation was having an adverse effect on his medical condition and it confirmed the decision not to award him medical priority.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. We cannot question council decisions if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may be disappointed with the Council’s decision not to award him medical priority, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
9. The Council acknowledged and apologised for its delay in making live his housing application and in considering his request for medical priority. However, we will not consider this matter in isolation when we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman