Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision regarding his housing needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s assessment of his housing needs. He says the Council did not properly assess the medical evidence he submitted.
2. He says the Council refused his application for new housing as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act of 2010.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to award High Needs priority to his housing application. He says he lives near a noisy factory and the noise from the factory has affected the health and wellbeing of him and his family.
8. Mr X feels that the Council should award him new housing as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. Mr X also said the Council did not assess his medical evidence properly.
9. Whilst I acknowledge his frustration, I am satisfied that the Council did take Mr X’s medical information into account and assessed it in line with its housing allocations scheme.
10. The Council explained that Mr X’s medical evidence does not show a causative link between his housing situation and his health problems, and therefore he cannot be awarded High Needs priority.
11. The Council also advised Mr X that it could not award him a separate home as a reasonable adjustment because the medical evidence he submitted does not clearly show that his current living situation, including noise from the nearby factory, is the direct cause of his health problems.
12. I have not found enough evidence of fault to question the Council’s housing decision to refuse to award Mr X High Needs priority. The Council assessed Mr X’s medical application in line with its housing allocations scheme and explained to Mr X why his medical evidence was not sufficient.
13. Where a Council has made a decision properly, we cannot question the merits or the outcome of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman