Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Miss X’s housing application and medical priority. This is because an investigation would not achieve a different outcome for Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council failed to properly assess her housing application and misrepresented her child’s abilities when considering what medical priority to award. Miss X says that as a result the Council did not award sufficient medical priority. Miss X also complains the Council delayed in dealing with her application and failed to issue written decisions. Miss X says that the Council’s actions caused significant distress to her and her family.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X made an application for the Council’s housing register as she considered her property to be unsuitable to meet her child’s medical needs. Miss X said the Council told her that it would only award low medical priority to her but did not provide a written decision.
6. Miss X made a complaint to the Council which it considered through its complaints procedure. In its stage one response, the Council acknowledged that its communication could have been clearer and more transparent. It would now issue written decisions explaining the reasons for its decision. The Council also told Miss X that it would prioritise her new application and backdate the effective date to her original application date. The Council apologised for the delays and distress caused to Miss X.
7. The Council considered Miss X’s application and decided to award low medical priority. Miss X requested a review of this decision. The Council reviewed the decision and decided to increase Miss X’s medical priority to medium and awarded 50 points. It also awarded 10 points for waiting time.
8. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a lack of transparency and delays in dealing with her housing register application. The Council has apologised to Miss X for a lack of clear and transparent communication. It also apologised for delays in dealing with her housing application and backdated it to her original application date. These are proportionate remedies for the distress caused to Miss X. The backdating of Miss X’s application is also the action we would have asked the Council to take. So, an investigation will not achieve more or a different outcome for her.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of her medical priority. Since Miss X made her complaint to us the Council has reviewed her medical priority. This is the action we would have asked the Council to take if we had investigated Miss X’s complaint and found fault with how it considered her medical priority. An investigation will therefore not achieve any more or a different outcome for Miss X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as an investigation will not achieve a different outcome for her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman