Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of her mother’s housing register application. She says the Council has not awarded appropriate priority. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her mother’s housing register application. She says the Council has not awarded appropriate priority to reflect her mother’s serious medical needs to move to a more suitable property.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X’s mother, Miss Z, is on the Council’s housing register. Miss X said her mother’s current property is not suitable as it is not accessible. Miss X complains the Council has not awarded appropriate priority to enable them to move to another, more suitable, property.
7. In April 2024, the Council awarded Miss Z’s application medical category C, 40 points. This decision was made following a medical assessment.
8. In November 2024, the Council completed a review of Miss Z’s banding priority. A new medical assessment was completed, and the medical advisor recommended an increase to medical category B, 80 points. The medical advisor also recommended an award of welfare category C, 40 points.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s decision and am satisfied it properly considered all the evidence provided by Miss X in relation to her mother’s medical conditions. The Council’s decision regarding the points to award are also in line with its housing allocation scheme. We cannot find fault with a decision if it has been made properly and in line with the published policy. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.
10. Miss X also complained about disrepair in the property. The Council appropriately inspected the property and found there was some disrepair. A schedule of works was provided to the landlord, who had agreed to complete the necessary repairs. An investigation is not proportionate as we are not likely to find fault.
11. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed the service provided by the housing officer did not meet the standard expected. The Council confirmed the manager had agreed to monitor the application and the matter was discussed with the housing officer. The Council also offered a remedy of £100 to recognise the distress caused by the poor service. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman