Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a decision to remove her from its housing register. Since bringing her complaint to us, the Council has reinstated her on the register and awarded Band C priority for moderate medical need. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its priority banding decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council did not properly consider her medical needs before deciding to remove her from its housing register. She said her accommodation is worsening her mental health, and she has an urgent need to move due to her medical needs. She wants the Council to reinstate her housing register application and award Band B for urgent medical 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

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. Since bringing the complaint to us, the Council has reviewed its decision and decided to reinstate Ms X on its housing register. We will not investigate this point further, as it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
7. As part of its review, the Council considered the information Ms X provided about her medical needs against the criteria set out in its housing allocations policy. It awarded Ms X priority band C for moderate medical need.
8. We will not investigate this decision as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has appropriately considered the evidence Ms X provided regarding her medical needs and its priority banding decision appears in line with its allocations policy. Although I acknowledge that Ms X wants the Council to increase her priority, we could not require the Council to do this. There is insufficient evidence in how the Council has considered the matter to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman