Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award medical priority for an application to its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to award him medical priority after having reassessed the medical evidence he has provided and his personal circumstances in accordance with its Housing Allocation Policy guidelines.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to review his medical priority for his housing application following its initial assessment that he had no significant medical needs. His request was accompanied with medical evidence by his GP and also further documentation highlighting his medical trauma history.
6. The Council’s response to Mr X’s application includes that “following a thorough reassessment of your circumstances and the evidence provided, we regret to inform you that the original decision not to award medical priority has been upheld.” It further provided that its decision was made in accordance with its Housing Allocation Policy. I have considered the sections to which the Council referred in the policy.
7. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council considered the information Mr X provided about his circumstances and its own allocation scheme when making its decision. There was no undue delay in making its decisions and it explained its reasons. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating further.
9. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award medical priority for an application to its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman