Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s refusal to award medical priority to her housing application. Miss X considers that as a result she and her children are living in unsuitable housing which is affecting her and her children’s medical conditions.

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 investigation. (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 asked the Council to award medical priority to her housing application. She considered her current property was too small which was making her and her children’s medical conditions worse. She also said she needed to move closer to her support network. The Council refused to award medical priority. It wrote to Miss X to explain the reasons for its decision.
7. Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision and provided additional information including a letter from her GP. The Council refused to award medical priority.
8. Miss X made a complaint about the Council’s decision. The Council upheld its decision not to award medical priority.
9. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what housing 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. The evidence shows the Council considered Miss X’s request for medical priority and her request for a review of its decision. The Council’s decision letters show it considered Miss X’s reasons for requesting priority and the evidence provided. The Council’s letters provided reasoned explanations for why it would not award medical priority to her. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s request for medical priority to justify an investigation of her complaint.
11. Final decision

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman