Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Miss X’s housing priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to justify an investigation of her complaint. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in dealing with Miss X’s request for medical priority as it provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council refused to increase her housing priority to allow her to successfully bid on a property. Miss X says that as a result she and her children must live in unsuitable accommodation which does not meet Miss X’s 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X is on the Council’s housing register. She notified the Council of a change of circumstances. The Council considered Miss X’s change of circumstances and told her that it had placed her in priority band three with three needs.
7. Miss X submitted a medical questionnaire and doctor’s letter as she considered her accommodation was no longer suitable for her medical and other needs. Miss X then made a complaint to the Council. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that it had taken too long to consider her medical information. It apologised for the delay.
8. The Council then assessed Miss X’s medical needs. It awarded a mobility category to Miss X so she could bid on accessible properties. Miss X’s housing priority remained in band three but with four needs. The Council’s letter to Miss X explained she could request a review of this decision if she was unhappy with it. We understand Miss X did not request a review.
9. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what medical priority should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper processes when making its decision
10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council considered her housing priority. The Council reached its decision after considering Miss X’s medical information including her doctor’s letter. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it reached its decision to justify an investigation. It was also open to Miss X to have requested a review of the Council’s decision if she disagreed with it.
11. The Council acknowledged it had taken too long to consider Miss X’s medical information. The Council apologised to Miss X and brought forward the consideration of her medical information. This was a proportionate remedy for the uncertainty caused to Miss X by the delay. We will not investigate this aspect of Miss X’s complaint as we could not achieve any more.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council considered her housing priority as there is insufficient evidence of to justify an investigation of her complaint. We will not investigate the Council’s delay in considering Miss X’s medical priority as it has provided a proportionate remedy for the uncertainty caused to her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman