Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision she did not meet the criteria for medical priority on its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not properly considered her son, Y’s, medical needs when deciding the household was not eligible for medical priority. She said the Council should not have awarded priority for overcrowding on the basis of an application for medical priority. Ms X said that, due to Council failings, she is living in an unsuitable property that does not meet Y’s disability 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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X lives with her son, Y, who has autism in a one bedroom flat. She says there is not enough space for Y to have a safety bed, which means their sleep is affected. She also says she cannot meet Y’s need for sensory stimulation in the property, which has led to him harming himself.
6. The Council carried out medical assessments in October 2023, January 2024 and February 2024. The Council decided Ms X was short of one bedroom and placed her application in band C, based on overcrowding. It did not award medical priority because it said Y had access to “all normal facilities”, but did recommend installing an additional safety lock to secure the balcony to the property.
7. Ms X appealed the decision and provided a supporting letter from Y’s health visitor. Amongst other things, this noted:
• Y liked to be outside, and Ms X was finding it difficult to keep him safe and off the property’s balcony when she needed to air the property;
• Ms X was concerned about Y’s safety because, when stressed, he hits his head on the headboard of the bed, but there was no room for the safety bed he desperately needed; and
• the limited space was exacerbating his behavioural challenges.
8. The Council considered the appeal at its case review panel and wrote to her on 25 October 2024 with the outcome, which was that she was correctly placed in band C because she was short of one bedroom. It did not award band B1 because she was otherwise adequately housed and did not meet the criteria for medical rehousing because Y’s problems were not made worse by the inbuilt design of his current housing.
9. Ms X was unhappy with the panel’s decision and complained. In its complaint response, the Council again set out its reasons for not awarding additional priority. It noted Y was on the waiting list for an occupational health (OT) assessment.

My assessment

10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says a council must allocate social housing in line with its published scheme.
11. The Council has considered the evidence Ms X provided and her concerns about her current housing. It has referred to its published scheme which says that it will give additional priority to those who need to move because they have medical needs and/or disability that is seriously affected by the design of their home. It has explained its reasons for deciding that, although they are overcrowded, the criteria for medical priority were not met because the issue was about space rather than the design of the property.
12. The Council has considered all relevant factors, explained its reasons and made its decision without undue delay. Its decision is in line with its published scheme. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
13. We would expect the Council to review the application on receipt of the OT assessment that is currently awaited.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman