Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council failing to consider the medical evidence she provided in January 2023. This is because the complaint is late and there are not good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, the likely fault did not cause any injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to consider the medical evidence she provided in January 2023. She says if the Council had considered it, she would have been given a higher priority on the housing register earlier.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

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

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. The Council confirmed Miss X’s housing application was received in July 2020 and was originally awarded Band C priority. The Council confirmed no medical priority was awarded in 2020.
7. The Council completed a further medical assessment in October 2022. Following this assessment, the Council awarded 20 points for medical need. Further medical assessments were also completed in January 2023 and October 2023. This confirmed the award of 20 points for medical need.
8. Miss X is complaining about the Council not considering her medical evidence in January 2023. This occurred more than 12 months ago and therefore her complaint to us is late. I cannot see any good reasons for why Miss X could not have complained about this matter earlier to warrant exercising discretion to consider the late complaint.
9. In any case, even if we exercised discretion, I am satisfied an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council did consider her evidence in January 2023 as the Council completed a further medical assessment. This assessment confirmed the award of 20 points for medical need.
10. The Council completed another medical assessment in December 2023, which led to the award of 30 points.
11. In June 2024, the Council completed yet another medical assessment. Following this assessment, the Council agreed to award overriding medical priority needs which meant Miss X’s application was given Band A priority. The Council confirmed Band A priority does not operate with any points and applicants are instead prioritised by the date Band A was granted.
12. The Council explained that when Miss X’s application was granted Band A, her previous points were incorrectly left on the application. When this error was identified, the Council corrected it by removing the points.
13. I am satisfied an investigation is not justified because the Council has explained why it removed the points, and we are not likely to find fault with its action. The Council was likely at fault for not removing the points in the first instance. However, I am satisfied this did not cause Miss X any injustice because Miss X benefitted from the fault as her housing application received a higher priority than it should have had.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the complaint is late and there are not good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, the likely fault did not cause any injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman