Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing application. The injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing application. She says the Council:
• delayed completing a medical review she submitted in 2024; and
• wrongly described her neurodevelopmental condition as a medical condition.
2. Miss X says the Council’s inaction has caused her distress. She also believes the mischaracterisation of her condition affected the outcome of the medical review, leaving her in unsuitable housing.
3. Miss X wants the Council to:
• update its housing application forms to distinguish mental health conditions from neurodevelopmental conditions;
• amend its records to reflect her condition correctly or permanently remove the medical assessment record and supporting evidence; and
• move her to a higher housing allocation band and fast track her application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. I acknowledge the Council delayed completing the medical review Miss X submitted in 2024. However, the review reached the same outcome as the previous assessment. Therefore, I do not consider the delay materially disadvantaged Miss X or caused her a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating.

Description of neurodevelopmental condition

8. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.
9. Whilst I recognise Miss X’s frustration with the Council describing her neurodevelopmental condition as a medical condition, I do not consider this has caused her a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating and the evidence does not suggest that it affected the outcome of the Council’s assessment.
10. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council has correctly assessed Miss X in line with its allocation policy. As there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment, we cannot require the Council to give Miss X greater priority over other applicants or provide her with housing sooner. Investigation by us is therefore not warranted as we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Rectification of forms and records

11. I do not consider the presentation of the Council’s forms has caused Miss X a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating. In any event, the Council has acknowledged her comments regarding the need to update its housing forms.
12. Miss X also wants the Council to amend or remove personal information held about her. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about the accuracy or rectification of personal data. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it has not caused her a significant enough injustice to justify us investigating. We cannot require the Council to prioritise her application over others and her complaint about the rectification of her personal data is better placed with the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman