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

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the way the Council assessed his housing application and medical priority. He wants the Council to correct the medical points so he can move.

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 Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, housing application and supporting evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to join the housing register. He sent some medical evidence to support the application. The Council assessed the application but decided not to award medical priority.
6. Mr X asked for a review and provided new medical evidence. The Council reviewed his application and awarded 40 medical points and 40 welfare points.
7. Mr X asked the Council to look at the application again and he submitted some new evidence. The Council considered the new evidence but did not award more points.
8. In response to his complaint the Council said Mr X has 194 points which is enough to make a successful bid. The Council encouraged Mr X to bid as often as possible.
9. Mr X complains about the way the Council assessed his application. He says the Council increased his points based on the same evidence and he thinks the same officer made the decisions.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have considered the way the Council assessed Mr X’s application and medical priority and I have not seen any suggestion of fault. The decisions show there was a detailed analysis of the evidence and the Council changed the decision because Mr X provided new information. I have not seen anything to suggest fault in the way the Council assessed the application or in the way the officers were involved. The decision to award 40 medical points, as part of a review, flows from the evidence and policy.
11. We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to decide how many points Mr X is eligible for. We have no power to tell the Council to award more points or offer Mr X a new home outside the bidding process. We can only intervene if there is fault in the way a council makes a decision and I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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