Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to exclude her from the housing register because it says she does not meet the medical criteria required for her to qualify. She says that the Council has had access to her medical needs for the past two years and it should give her application priority.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council has rejected her medical priority assessment for her housing application. She applied to the Council housing register but was told she did not qualify because she did not meet the residency criteria. This matter was the subject of an earlier complaint to us ref: 23021384. We concluded in that case that it was for the Council to decide whether it should waive the residency criteria.
6. The Council reviewed the case and decided it would waive the residency criteria because Miss X says she has medical needs which can only be met within the borough and she has to travel frequently from her current address. The Council asked Miss X to provide details of her medical needs so that they could be assessed.
7. The Council says Miss X did not provide sufficient new information about her medical needs and she withdrew consent for her GP to provide details about her medical treatment. Because of this the Council told her that it could not award medical priority and so her application remained non-qualifying for the register. It told Miss X she could ask for a review of the decision but she did not do so.
8. The Ombudsman is 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.
9. I can see nothing which indicates that Miss X’s housing application has not been properly considered. If she provides new medical information and allows access to her medical needs she may be able to ask for a new review of her application under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman