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

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to increase her housing register priority on the grounds of urgent medical and welfare need.

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council’s allocations policy sets out how it allocates social housing in its area. It determines an applicant’s priority using a points-based system which awards points based on assessed housing need. One criteria is for urgent medical and welfare need which if met, gives an award of 100 points. The policy states this criteria is only awarded for a very small proportion of applicants and usually where applicants cannot access basic facilities, e.g. a toilet, or for those living in conditions that pose a serious and imminent risk of harm and where other housing options are not available.
8. Ms X joined the Council’s housing register in 2018. In 2023, she asked the Council to increase her housing register priority. She provided additional information related to her family’s medical and welfare needs to support her review application.
9. The Council considered her application. It accepted her family had medical and welfare needs and increased her priory points on these grounds. However, it did not consider she met the criteria for an award of 100 additional points for urgent need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
10. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision, but it did not change its position. It advised her of alternative housing options and where to access additional support.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has appropriately reviewed Ms X’s application and supporting evidence. It has acknowledged her family have medical and welfare needs and awarded points in recognition of this, but decided she does not meet the threshold for 100 urgent need to move points. As it has appropriately considered the matter and the decision appears in line with its policy, this is a decision it is entitled to reach. I accept Ms X disagrees with this decision, but there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached this decision to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms 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