Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement..

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council have not awarded appropriate medical priority on its housing register. She said she had medical conditions, which mean she cannot manage the stairs in her building, and that the lifts are regularly not working, which means she is effectively house-bound. She said she had provided support letters from doctors and occupational therapists, but the Council has ignored them. Ms X also complained her current housing is seriously overcrowded and the property is affected by mould which has caused respiratory problems for one of her children.

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))

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Ms X, who has medical conditions that, amongst other things, affect her ability to use stairs, asked the Council to award medical priority on her housing register application. The Council considered the evidence in July 2024. It awarded band C medical priority. In September, it considered fresh medical evidence Ms X provided and awarded band B priority. Also, in September, its Emergency Panel considered her application. It wrote to her in October 2024 to explains its reasons for deciding she had not met the criteria for band A. Ms X asked for a review of that decision. The Council issued a review decision in December 2024, which confirmed the family’s difficulties did not amount to an emergency need for rehousing and the criteria for band A was therefore not met.

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say what decision a Council should make. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must make decisions in line with their published allocations scheme.
8. The Council has considered the evidence provided at each stage of the process and its allocations scheme and reached a view on the appropriate band. It has explained the reasons for its decisions, including why it does not consider the criteria for band A is met, and set out relevant review rights. There has been no undue delay in its decision-making. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify our involvement.
9. Ms X has also complained about mould and about problems with the lift in her building. These matters are the responsibility of her landlord, a housing association. We cannot investigate complaints about housing associations as they are not in our remit.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority band awarded because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman