Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council carried out a medical assessment because it did not cause sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council acted with bias when seeking medical evidence to inform its assessment of whether the family were eligible for additional priority on health grounds. He says the Council told medical professionals it had addressed the damp and mould in their property, when it had not done so. He said the Council’s actions had added to the stress the family were already under due to the condition of their property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. In March 2024 Mr X asked the Council to consider awarding additional priority on its housing register to reflect the impact of the damp and mould in his property on his family’s health.
8. The Council carried out a medical assessment. As part of this it wrote to the family GP and to health professionals who were involved with his children in May 2024. In its letter to the GP, the Council set out the ways in which Mr X said the conditions in the property were affecting the family’s health and asked the GP to comment on their medical issues and how these may be linked to their home. The Council also set out works it had done to address the damp and mould.
9. Mr X did not agree that appropriate work had been carried out to address the damp and mould and complained the Council had not sought medical evidence in a neutral way. In its complaint response, the Council said it had sought opinions on how their housing was affecting their health and that the GP had said they could not offer an opinion on their housing conditions.
10. Various medical professionals expressed their view of the impact of damp and mould on respiratory conditions, and this was considered alongside the other information the Council had in support of the housing register application. In July 2024, it decided it could not award additional priority. It said the application was in band B, which was in line with its allocations policy. It explained Mr X could ask for a review of its decision if he disagreed with it.
11. I understand Mr X did not ask for a review and has since moved.

My assessment

12. We cannot investigate complaints about disrepair in Council properties because complaints about councils in their capacity as social landlords is out of our jurisdiction. I am aware Mr X is pursuing a complaint with the Housing Ombudsman Service about this.
13. It was appropriate for the Council to seek medical evidence to support the request for additional priority. In writing to the GP, it set out in some detail the health conditions Mr X said the family had suffered as a result of the damp and mould and, in response, the GP confirmed the medical conditions they had recorded. It also provided information about work that had been done to address the damp and mould, although it did not go so far as to state this had resolved the problem. Whether or not the Council intended to influence the GP, as Mr X believes, the GP did not offer a view on the condition of the property and the impact of that on the health conditions diagnosed and stated they were not qualified to do so.
14. The Council considered all the information it had before deciding not to award additional priority. Mr X had a right of review if he disagreed with that decision, and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right. That said, the decision appears to be in line with the Council’s published scheme and there was no undue delay in reaching that decision. Therefore, any fault in the way the Council sought medical evidence has not caused a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman