Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says the request for medical priority ignored her evidence and stated that she no longer had any medical priority. She wants the Council to reconsider the decision.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says the Council failed to properly consider the evidence she put forward for a medical priority assessment for her housing application. In 2024 she was awarded Band C priority following a medical assessment which was backdated to 2021. She asked for a further assessment and in March this year the Council’s medical assessment panel decided that she had no medical priority for her housing needs.
6. The Council delayed her medical assessment for some time and as a result it says it will use its discretion to maintain her current banding, even though the panel said she has no medical housing need.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. In this case the medical assessors did not feel that the evidence provided by Mrs X warranted medical priority because it was not directly related to her housing circumstances. This was a decision which it was entitled to take and not all reviews result in a positive outcome. The Council has decided to maintain her current banding so there is no significant injustice resulting from any delay in coming to the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman