Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to award him increase housing register priority on medical grounds. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to award him increased housing register priority on medical grounds. He says his current housing is unsuitable and having a negative impact on his mental health. He wants the Council to award him medical priority and provide him with suitable 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. He provided the Council with information about his medical conditions to support the award of increased priority on medical grounds.
7. The Council considered the information provided and sought advice from an independent medical advisor. It decided that, although it acknowledged he had medical conditions, he did not meet the threshold to be awarded additional medical priority. It reviewed its decision following his request, but did not change its position.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Council has appropriately considered Mr X’s medical information but decided he does not meet the threshold for medical priority. I accept Mr X disagrees with this decision but as the Council has appropriately consider the matter, we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman