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 assessment of her housing application. She says she provided a lot of detail about her medical needs including evidence from her GP. She says the Council did not contact her GP or other medical staff involved or make a personal visit to her and it ignored her evidence.

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 information provided by the complainant and the Council. 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 asked the Council to carry out a medical review of her housing application because she says her medical condition means that she is having to sleep on the floor of her current accommodation. She submitted evidence from her GP and care co-ordinator.
6. The Council considered her request and issued its decision of the review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 in May. It told Miss X that there was insufficient evidence that her condition had changed significantly since her current Band C status was applied and therefore the Band C priority would remain. The Council says there is no benefit in contacting her medical practitioners if her condition does not meet the threshold for a higher banding. The Council explained its allocations policy to Miss X and how medical need is considered under each of the priority bands.
7. The Council uses external medical advisors to consider the medical evidence before it makes any banding changes. There is no requirement to undertake home visits for medical assessments and the council does not have such a policy.
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. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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