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

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council will not accept that, for medical reasons, she has specific property requirements. She wants the Council to offer properties in accordance with her needs.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes correspondence about her housing application and the medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X is in band two (medical) on the housing register. Her registration does not include any restrictions on the type of property the Council will offer.
5. The Council offered a new build property which included a bath and a lift to the third floor. The property was the correct size. Ms X refused the property. Ms X says the Council did not take into account her specific needs; these include a need for a bath, parking, outdoor space and to avoid tower blocks.
6. The Council had awarded priority on medical grounds but had not found that Ms X has any requirements that are supported by medical evidence. There is a letter which says Ms X would like a bath for medical reasons; the flat the Council offered had a bath.
7. The Council decided Ms X had refused a reasonable offer. It suspended Ms X’s application for 12 months. The policy says the Council can suspend an application if someone refuses a suitable offer. Ms X asked for a review and explained why she needs a property with specific features (e.g parking). The Council considered what she said in conjunction with the medical evidence and allocations policy. It confirmed its decision to suspend the application was correct and that it had made a suitable offer; it gave reasons for its decision.
8. In response to my enquiries the Council looked again at the application and realised that band two may not be correct. Before it lifts the suspension next summer, the Council will reassess the application to see if band two is correct. Ms X will have the opportunity to submit evidence as part of the reassessment and there will be review rights she can use if she disagrees with the new decision.
9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council had not placed any restrictions on the type of property it will offer, other than to ensure it is the correct size. I appreciate Ms X may feel she would benefit from a certain type of property, with certain amenities, but there is nothing to say the Council must offer a property which meets these conditions. I have not seen anything in the medical evidence to suggest the property the Council offered was unsuitable. In addition, the decision to suspend the application for 12 months reflects the policy.
10. The Council is now questioning whether Ms X should be in band two. I cannot comment on this because the Council has not yet reassessed the application and has not decided whether to reduce Ms X’s priority. If it decides Ms X should not be in band two, Ms X will have the chance to challenge the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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