Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Ms X’s housing priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council considered her housing priority. In particular, she complaints that it:

• Referred to an incorrect medical diagnosis when considering Ms X’s application for housing and health points.
• Removed 75 points from her application.

2. Ms X says that as a result the Council’s decision on her housing priority is wrong and she and her family cannot move from unsuitable accommodation which is affecting their health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X applied to join the Council’s housing register a number of years ago. We will not investigate events before May 2024 as they are late and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to consider them now.
9. In summer 2024, Ms X updated her housing application to add that she was experiencing anti social behaviour at her property. The Council awarded 75 harassment and violence points. The Council then removed the points after it verified the information provided by Ms X. It reinstated the points following further information from Ms X.
10. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision on the number of points awarded. The Council considered Ms X’s review at stage one of its two stage review process. It concluded it had awarded the correct number of points.
11. Ms X requested a stage two review. In her request she said that their housing conditions were having an impact on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. She considered moving would improve their medical conditions.
12. The Council asked Ms X to provide evidence of her and her family’s health conditions. Ms X provided medical evidence. The Council then sought the advice of its independent medical advisor. The medical advisor recommended housing and health points should not be awarded.
13. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage two review request. It explained that applicants were only eligible for housing and health points if they could demonstrate their medical condition was made worse by their housing and rehousing was likely to improve their condition. The Council’s letter listed Ms X’s and her son’s medical conditions and the medical evidence provided by Ms X. The Council considered that the medical evidence did not show that Ms X and her family’s medical conditions met these criteria. The Council did not award housing and health points.
14. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what points the Council should award to an applicant. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper processes when making its decision.
15. The Council’s stages one and two review letters show it considered Ms X’s reasons for wanting housing and health points and the medical evidence provided. The Council provided a reasoned explanation for why it considered Ms X was not eligible for housing and health points. Ms X said the Council referred to an incorrect medical diagnosis in its stage two response letter and did not refer to a serious medical condition she had been diagnosed with. The medical evidence provided by Ms X to the Council did not include the serious medical condition. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
16. We note that the Council listed Ms X’s daughter’s medical condition under Ms X’s name. Even if this is evidence of fault, there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation. The Council’s stage two review response shows it considered the medical information. The Council wrongly attributing Ms X’s daughter’s medical condition to Ms X therefore does not call into question its decision.
17. The Council withdrew the 75 harassment and violence points from Ms X’s application in spring 2025. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this aspect of Ms X’s complaint. This is because the Council’s allocation policy provides harassment and violence points are only awarded for a six month period. So, the decision to remove the points is in accordance with the allocations policy.
18. The Council allocations policy says it will advise an applicant of its decision within 14 days of a stage one review request. The Council took two months to respond to the stage one review. We will not investigate delay by the Council as it apologised to Ms X for the delay which is a proportionate remedy for the frustration caused. An investigation would not achieve more for Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman