Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s medical priority and number of bedrooms he required. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify to an investigation. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in dealing with his review request which is a proportionate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council:

• Delayed in carrying out a reassessment of his medical priority and did not award sufficient housing priority. Mr X considered his health conditions warranted higher priority on the Council’s housing register.
• Failed to properly consider Mr X’s medical evidence when it decided he was not eligible for a two bedroom property.

2. Mr X says that as a result he is living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary which is affecting his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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, any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X is on the Council’s housing register. He applied for medical priority as he considered his housing had a severe impact on his medical conditions. The Council assessed Mr X’s medical information and decided it should not award medical priority. Mr X requested a review of the decision. The Council carried out a medical reassessment but did not award medical priority. Mr X requested a review of this decision
9. The Council carried out a review of its decision not to award medical priority. It decided that the information provided by Mr X showed his housing had an impact on his overall health. The Council said it considered that moderate medical priority applied to Mr X and placed him in band 3.
10. Mr X also told the Council that he required a two bedroom property due to his medical needs. The Council considered Mr X’s request when it considered the review of his medical priority. The Council said Mr X did not have a medical need for a two bedroom property.
11. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what medical priority should be awarded or the size of property an applicant requires. Our role is to consider if the Council followed the proper processes when reaching its decisions.
12. The Council’s review decision letter set out the information it looked at when considering Mr X’s review request. This included Mr X’s reasons for requesting medical priority and a two bedroom property and the medical information he provided. The Council’s letter explained why it considered Mr X had moderate medical need and why he was not eligible for band 2 priority. The Council’s decision letter also explained why it considered he did not have a medical need for a two bedroom property. This shows the Council considered the relevant information and provided a reasoned explanation for its decisions. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on his medical priority and request for a two bedroom property.
13. In the review decision letter, the Council apologised to Mr X for its delay in dealing with his review request. This is a sufficient and proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Mr X by the delay. An investigation would not achieve any more for Mr X.
14. The Council has carried out a further medical assessment for Mr X which he says he did not request. This assessment did not change his medical priority or priority band. We will not investigate how the Council carried out the further medical assessment. The Council told Mr X that he could seek a review of the Council’s decision not to change his medical priority and priority band. So, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have requested a review.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decisions on Mr X’s medical priority and his request for a two bedroom property. The Council’s apology to Mr X for the delay in considering his review request is a sufficient and proportionate remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman