Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of his housing register priority. This is because further investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council incorrectly assessed his housing register application as urgent housing need, rather than exceptional housing need. He says the Council failed to properly consider medical evidence and did not properly explain its decision. 

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X was on the Council’s housing register and asked for his medical priority to be reassessed. The Council reassessed his medical priority and decided he had an urgent need to move. Mr X says the Council did not explain how it considered his medical evidence and did not explain why his evidence did not support an exceptional need to move.
7. A housing register priority decision letter should explain the priority awarded and how a council reached its decision by referring to the applicant’s individual circumstances, the relevant medical evidence, and the criteria in the allocations scheme. It should show how the evidence was weighed, explain why the applicant met the criteria for the band awarded.
8. I have looked at the decision letter given to Mr X and it did not adequately explain why he was awarded urgent priority with reference to his circumstances and medical evidence.
9. The Council accepted its decision letter should have been clearer and said future letters will better link the decision to the applicant’s circumstances. However, I have not seen evidence the Council gave Mr X a clear personal explanation. This caused him uncertainty. 
10. Mr X has now been rehoused. While I understand Mr X found the process distressing, I do not consider further investigation would lead to a worthwhile outcome because Mr X has now been rehoused and the Council has identified learning for future decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman