Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to increase his priority on the housing register. Mr X is offended by comments that the Council does not award priority simply for having a health condition. Mr X wants the Council to place him in a higher band.

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 Mr X and the Council. This includes Mr X’s review request and medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X is in band C on the housing register. He lives with his young child who has health issues. Mr X and his child live in overcrowded conditions.
5. Mr X asked for a review and higher priority. He submitted medical evidence which explained the impact of the current housing on his child’s health and stressed the child needs their own room and more space to manage their health needs.
6. The Council reviewed Mr X’s housing application and confirmed that band C, as defined by the allocations policy, is correct. It explained it had awarded band C because Mr X needs another bedroom and to reflect a medium medical need to move. The Council said it awards medical priority when someone’s accommodation has a negative impact on health and the health condition could be improved by moving to a different home. The Council decided Mr X qualifies for medium medical priority but that the evidence does not show he qualifies for high medical priority. The Council explained it might award high medical priority to someone who is severely disabled and housebound due to their housing. The Council said it does not award medical priority simply for having a health condition and that the resolution sometimes rests with treatment not re-housing. Mr X says his child’s condition cannot be treated and he feels offended by this statement.
7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It is not my role to decide which band Mr X should be in. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council decided to award band C and see I no suggestion of fault.
8. Mr X needs a two bedroom home; band C is the correct band for people who lack one bedroom. Band C can also reflect a medium medical need to move. The Council considered Mr X’s circumstances and the medical evidence and decided it shows that his child’s health is being negatively affected by the current home and would be improved by moving. But, it also decided the evidence does not show Mr X and his child meet the criteria for band B. The decision reached by the Council flows from the allocation policy and the evidence so there is no reason to start an investigation. I appreciate Mr X needs a larger home but we are not an appeal body and we cannot intervene because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with.
9. Mr X says he feels insulted by some of the comments made by the Council. But, the comments correctly explained the way the Council assesses medical priority as stated in the policy. Further, the Council accepted Mr X’s child would benefit from a move and the comment about people sometimes needing treatment, rather than a move, was a general comment rather than one that referred to Mr X or his child.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman