Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not considering all relevant information when it completed its review of his housing register priority band. This is because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not consider all relevant information when it completed its review of his housing register priority band

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is on the Council’s housing register. He says the Council did not consider all relevant information when it completed a review of his housing register priority band.
6. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing the complainant injustice. This is because the Council has not evidenced consideration of whether the number of stairs leading to Mr X’s property, and the location of the property, has a major adverse impact on his wife’s medical conditions. I am satisfied this will have caused uncertainty as to whether the Council’s decision on Mr X’s banding priority is correct.
7. In reaching this view, I note:
• Mr X says the area surrounding his home is extremely hilly and creates significant challenge for his wife.
• Mr X says his wife can only manage two to three steps due to her medical conditions. Mr X has provided a range of medical evidence to show his wife does have medical conditions that would likely affect her mobility and ability to navigate steps. Mr X says there are 40-45 steps to navigate to get to their property.
• The Council has placed Mr X’s application in mobility group three. The Council’s policy notes that mobility group three is typically suitable for a person able to manage two or three steps or may be unable to manage steep gradients.
• The Council’s medical advisor noted the property advert and google maps showed around 16 steps. While this is less than what Mr X has stated, this was still more than two to three steps. However, the medical assessor did not consider whether it was satisfied Mr X’s wife can manage this number of stairs, or whether the number of stairs would have a major adverse effect on her medical conditions.
8. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by the likely fault by completing a new review of Mr X’s banding priority. The Council should evidence its consideration of the issue of the number of steps leading to Mr X’s property and whether the Council is satisfied the housing condition does not have a major adverse effect on Mr X’s wife’s medical conditions.

Back to top

Agreed action

9. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will do the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman