Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr Y’s housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council considered the application. The Council’s apology for its poor communication is a sufficient and proportionate remedy for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of Mr Y. She complained that the Council failed to properly consider Mr Y’s mental health, learning disability and welfare when considering his application to join the housing register so it did not award sufficient housing priority. Mrs X says that as a result the Council removed Mr Y from the housing register as he does not have sufficient priority. Mrs X also considers the Council’s actions have caused significant distress to her and Mr Y.

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, 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))
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y applied for the Council’s housing register. The Council refused Mr Y’s application as it considered he did not have any housing need.
8. Mrs X applied for medical priority on Mr Y’s behalf. She explained that Mr Y had experienced anti social behaviour in the local area which was causing significant anxiety to him. The Council refused to award medical priority as it considered the anti social behaviour was not a medical issue. Mrs X requested a review of this decision. The Council decided Mr Y qualified for the housing register and awarded band E priority. It backdated his priority to the date Mrs X applied for medical priority. Mrs X considered the priority band was not sufficient to recognise the effect of Mr Y’s housing on his mental health.
9. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what priority the Council should award to Mr Y. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper process when reaching its decision.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision on Mr Y’s housing register application and the priority awarded. The Council’s review decision letter sets out the information it considered, including the evidence provided by Mrs X. It also set out the recommendations of its independent medical advisor which showed they considered Mr Y’s mental health. The Council’s letter broadly explained the reasons for its decision that Mr Y qualified for the housing register and its decision to award band E. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council considered Mr Y’s housing register application and priority band.
11. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaints acknowledged faults in its communication with her and apologised for the errors. The Council’s apology is a sufficient and proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Mrs X. It is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
12. Mrs X has said the Council has now removed Mr Y from its housing register following a change to its housing allocations scheme. We will not investigate this complaint as we generally expect people to seek a review of the Council’s decision on a housing register application before we will consider it. It was open to Mr Y to seek a review of the Council’s decision that he no longer qualified for the housing register if he was unhappy with the decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman