Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a priority social housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making, and the injustice from the Council’s delay is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council refused to award her a higher priority band on the housing register, despite her medical needs. Mrs X says this has impacted her mental health and her family’s wellbeing. Mrs X wants the Council to reconsider her case.
2. Mrs X also complains the Council took too long to consider her appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In June 2024, the Council assessed Mrs X’s request for medical priority. The Council considered both her medical evidence and wider circumstances and decided she did not meet the criteria for medical priority.
7. Mrs X appealed, and the Council upheld the decision. 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. Where a council acts in line with an agreed policy which has been properly determined we have no powers to intervene. That appears to be the case here. So, we will not investigate the Council’s decision.
8. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for the delay in reviewing her appeal. As the original decision was upheld and we will not investigate it, there has not been sufficient personal injustice from the delay alone to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making, and the injustice from the Council’s delay is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman