Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's decision not to award her medical priority on its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its policy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council's decision not to award her medical priority on its housing register. She says her current adapted property does not meet her needs because its location leaves her isolated and makes it difficult to access public transport, services and support from family.

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. (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. Ms X applied for medical priority on the housing register. The Council assessed her application and decided she did not meet the criteria for a medical priority award.
7. Ms X requested a review, saying the location of her property, including its distance from support and local amenities, was negatively affecting her wellbeing.
8. The Council's policy says applicants seeking priority because of support needs must demonstrate they do not have adequate support where they currently live and that rehousing would significantly improve their ability to manage independently. The Council found Ms X's adult son lived with her as her primary carer and provided daily support, and that she also received support from her daughter.
9. Following a review, the Council concluded the evidence did not show Ms X's current accommodation posed a significant risk to her health or wellbeing, nor that its location prevented her from accessing support. It therefore upheld the decision not to award medical priority.
10. The Council is responsible for assessing applications and applying its allocations policy. We are not an appeal body and cannot question a decision simply because someone disagrees with it. Our role is to consider whether there is evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached. Based on the information available, the Council considered the relevant evidence, carried out a review and explained its reasons for the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman