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. Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to re-assess her housing application for medical needs. She says she is living in a one-bedroom property and needs three bedrooms because one of her children needs a separate bedroom due to his undiagnosed ADHD. She is waiting for a formal diagnosis but says there are delays and she needs to move quickly because her family is suffering.

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 responses. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says she is living in a one-bedroom property and needs three bedrooms because of her family circumstances. Her son is awaiting a diagnosis of ADHD and she says he needs a separate bedroom to prevent disturbance to her other child. She says she has provided a letter of support from the NHS confirming that her son is on a waiting list for an assessment but there is a considerable backlog.
6. The Council reviewed Miss X’s compalint and said that it will not make any changes to her priority on medical grounds until a formal assessment and diagnosis has been made. Its Occupational Therapists have screened the case but will not make a recommendation at this stage because it is still conjecture.
7. There are other applicants awaiting outcomes which affect their priority including additional family members being added and medical concerns, but the Council can only assess an application regarding the current circumstances.
8. 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.
9. Whilst Miss X is housing need and is already prioritised for a 3-bedroom property, it is understandable that the Council will not give any additional priority for a matter which has not been confirmed by medical professionals. If it did so this may cause injustice to other applicants who already have confirmed changes in circumstances by lessening their chances of an offer.
10. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas and we may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published allocations policy.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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