Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about a change in her health assessment. She says in one assessment she was noted to have a permanent and substantial disability/severe long-term limited illness but in another assessment, she was found not to. She also complains the Council lost some documents she sent in. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about a change in her health assessment. She says in one assessment she was noted to have a permanent and substantial disability/severe long-term limited illness but in another assessment, she was found not to. She says the Council has not explained the reasons for this change. She also complains the Council lost some documents she sent in.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X is registered on the Council’s housing register. In February 2023, she asked the Council to review her banding priority as she felt she qualified for a higher priority band. In the medical assessment form, it was recorded under the question ‘is there is a permanent and substantial disability/severe long-term limiting illness?’ as ‘Yes’. Another assessment was completed in January 2024. However, in this medical assessment form, the question was marked as ‘No’.
6. Miss X complained about this discrepancy and wanted to know why the answer to this question had changed even though her health circumstances had not improved, and in fact had worsened.
7. During its complaint investigation, the Council did not explain the reasons for why the answer to this question had changed. However, the Council had noted that it was clear Miss X did have long term health needs.
8. An investigation is not justified because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. This is because Miss X did not meet the other part of the criteria for medical priority to apply. Therefore, even if there was fault with the Council incorrectly noting she did not have a substantial disability/severe long-term limiting illness, this had no impact on Miss X’s priority.
9. Further, Miss X’s medical circumstances would need to be assessed each time she applies for medical priority. It is not appropriate for the Council to just rely on the previous decision made as some individual’s circumstances can improve.
10. I note Miss X wants to know why there was a discrepancy in the answers to the question in the two medical assessment forms. It is not a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources to investigate solely to get answers to this question, especially given this did not caused any significant injustice.
11. Miss X also complained the Council has lost medical evidence she provided by email. She says the Council has not been able to locate the evidence she provided, and she was concerned about this from a data handling perspective. This complaint is best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office as her complaint is about how the Council handled and stored her personal information.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman