Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to refuse Mr X’s application. The Council provided a proportionate remedy for the delay in considering Mr X’s review request.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence when considering his application for the housing register. Mr X says that as a result he is living in accommodation that does not meet his medical needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register as he considered his current property was unsuitable due to his medical needs. The Council carried out a medical assessment and decided that Mr X did not qualify for the housing register. This was because it considered that Mr X’s medical conditions did not warrant medical priority.
7. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision. The Council considered Mr X’s review request but did not change its decision.
8. We are not an appeal body so we will not come to our own view on whether the Council should award medical priority to Mr X. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper processes when making its decision.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. When dealing with Mr X’s review request, the Council carried out a further medical assessment including a home visit to Mr X. So, the Council could understand Mr X’s medical conditions and decide if he qualified for medical priority. The Council’s review decision letter set out the evidence it considered. This included Mr X’s reasons for requesting medical priority and a review. The Council’s letter explained why it considered Mr X did not qualify for medical priority and the housing register. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation of Mr X’s complaint.
10. The Council took approximately 10 months to consider Mr X’s review request. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in its review decision letter. This is a proportionate remedy for any distress caused to Mr X by the delay and is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
11. Mr X has said that his medical conditions have deteriorated since the Council considered his review request. Mr X should tell the Council about the deterioration of his conditions for it to decide if it should further consider his medical priority.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman