Summary: We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his request for medical priority on its social housing register. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. We will also not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. It is reasonable for him to request a review of its recent decision.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complains about how the Council handled his request for medical priority on its social housing register. He says this means he is living in unsuitable housing which has worsened his health conditions and caused him stress. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He wants the Council to give him medical priority, arrange suitable accommodation for him, and train its staff to prevent similar issues.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I also considered the Council’s social housing allocations policy, available on its website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to our enquiries, the Council provided evidence of its decision making on Mr Z’s medical priority request. The decision letter sent to Mr Z explained the Council’s assessment criteria and how it had considered his medical information and advice from the Council’s medical adviser. The Council decided Mr Z’s request did not meet its criteria so did not give him medical priority. It explained how he could request a review of this decision.
7. The Council also provided information related to Mr Z’s homelessness application from around the same time. This said the Council decided it owed Mr Z a ‘prevention duty’ because he was threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance. It decided this after Mr Z’s landlord served him with an eviction notice.
8. In response to Mr Z, the Council did not uphold his complaint about its decision on his medical priority request, but it acknowledged an error in how it handled his homelessness application. It said, although it had initially told Mr Z it had accepted a homelessness relief duty, this was incorrect. It said it considered Mr Z’s current housing suitable for his needs, so he could not be considered homeless on the grounds that his current property was unsuitable.
9. Since Mr Z complained to us, the Council has issued Mr Z with two housing decisions. The first decision ended its prevention duty to him as it considered he was no longer at risk of homelessness. It said this was because Mr Z’s landlord had agreed Mr Z could remain in the property and once his current tenancy agreement ended, they would offer him a new tenancy. The second was that he no longer qualified for the housing register, as it considered he was adequately housed. It told him about his right to request a review of these decisions.
10. Mr Z has since asked the Council to reopen his case and review its decisions.
11. We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his medical priority request. It appears the Council took appropriate steps to consider relevant information against its assessment criteria before making its decision. It also outlined Mr Z’s review rights in the decision letter. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it handled this request.
12. We will also not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. The Council accepted a prevention duty and took action to prevent him from becoming homeless. Once it was satisfied he was no longer at risk of homelessness, it ended its duty and explained his review rights. It was reasonable for Mr Z to request a review if he disagreed with the Council’s decision to end its duty, so we will not investigate this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his request for medical priority because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. We will also not investigate Mr Z’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application because it was reasonable for him to request a review of its recent decision to end its homelessness duty.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman