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. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to recognise her medical needs when deciding her housing register priority banding. She says this has caused distress and means she is in the wrong band. She wants the Council to increase her priority banding and provide her with suitable housing.

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))
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. Ms X currently lives in temporary accommodation with her partner and children. Both she and one of her children have been diagnosed with autism, and she has submitted supporting medical evidence to the Council. On her initial housing application, the Council assessed her needs and awarded her a Band C priority. Citing the impact of her current living conditions on her and her child’s health, Ms X asked for a review of the banding decision, seeking an upgrade to Band B on medical grounds.
7. In reviewing Ms X’s housing application, the Council outlined the criteria required to qualify for a Band B medical award. It considered both Ms X’s and her child’s autism diagnoses, as well as Ms X’s additional health conditions. However, following consultation with a qualified medical professional, the Council concluded that she did not meet the threshold for a medical banding award.
8. The Council further explained how she did not meet the criteria for additional priority on care and support grounds or due to exceptional circumstances. Nonetheless, the Council acknowledged Ms X’s current living situation qualifies her for an overcrowding award, which corresponds to Band C. It confirmed she would remain in this priority band.
9. In reaching its decision, the Council considered the information in Ms X’s application and her supporting evidence, consulted with a qualified medical professional, and appears to have acted in line with its published housing allocation policy. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision and we therefore cannot question the outcome. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman