• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• My assessment
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the priority given to Mrs X’s housing application. Investigation would be unlikely to find fault because the evidence suggests the Council reached its decision properly.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused to give her housing application Gold Band priority on medical grounds. She argues she and her family have insufficient priority to move from their poor living conditions into social housing.

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 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 the complainant and viewed the Council’s housing allocations policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. For confidentiality reasons, this statement does not give details of the medical conditions and disabilities of Mrs X’s household or how those matters affect their living conditions.
7. The Council gave Mrs X’s housing application Silver Band priority on medical grounds. Mrs X argues the family’s circumstances merit Gold Band, a higher priority, under the Council’s housing allocations policy.
8. It is for the Council to decide how much medical priority to give an application. The Council can consider evidence from doctors or other professionals, but those people cannot make the decision.
9. The Council gave Mrs X’s application Silver Band priority. It upheld that position at both stages of its review procedure. Mrs X complained to us after the second review.
10. We are not an appeal body. As paragraph 3 explained, our role is to consider how the Council reached its decision. The record of the Council’s final review decision suggests the Council considered all the evidence it had on file, including from Mrs X, medical and other professionals involved in the situation and representations on Mrs X’s behalf. The record mentions points about the family’s situation and the impact of their housing conditions that Mrs X mentioned in her complaint to us.
11. Overall, the evidence I have seen suggests the Council considered its policy and the information it had about the family. It gave reasons for its decision. Therefore the evidence suggests the decision was properly reached, so we cannot criticise it, although Mrs X and others can disagree with the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs’s complaint because the evidence suggests the Council properly reached its decision. Investigation would therefore be unlikely to find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page