Summary: We decided not to investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a request for a review of Ms X’s priority band on its housing register. The Council has upheld the complaint about a delay in issuing its review decision and has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. The Council has already apologised for a delay in allocating a support worker to help Ms X request a review, which was appropriate. There was insufficient evidence of fault in the way it considered the review to justify us investigating that part of the complaint further.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not properly considered her medical needs when assessing her priority band on its housing register. She also complained about a delay in providing support for her review request and a delay in carrying out the review. Ms X said her physical and mental health had deteriorated whilst she was waiting for the Council to help her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council carried out a medical assessment and made its decision in November 2023. The Council noted Ms X had difficulties with stairs and accessing the bathroom in her current property. It said she needed a property on the ground floor or in a building with a lift and that she needed a shower seat. However, it concluded she should remain in band C with a medical award of band C (moderate).

Delay – support worker

7. Ms X was unhappy with the decision and asked for support to request a review. In its complaint response, the Council accepted a delay in allocating a support worker to help her and apologised. Ms X submitted a review request in late January 2024. She said she should be in band A and explained why. Although this was outside the usual 21 day timeframe for asking for a review, the Council agreed to review its decision.
8. Although this delay caused Ms X some frustration, she was not prevented from asking for a review. Therefore, an apology was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. Therefore, we will not consider this part of the complaint further.

Delay in carrying out the review

9. Councils are required to carry out reviews within 8 weeks. In this case, the Council did not issue a review decision until early December 2024, which was 10 months after the request was made. The Council told us the delay was due to staff shortages. It has now recruited additional staff and is working on an action plan to address the backlog.
10. If we investigated this part of the complaint, it is likely we would find fault because there was along delay in issuing a review decision. We therefore asked the Council to take action to remedy the frustration caused and the avoidable time and trouble Ms X was put to pursuing the matter. The Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the day of the final decision:
• To apologise to Ms X for the delay in issuing a review decision in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively; and
• Pay her £100 for recognise the injustice caused.

Review decision

11. In its review decision, the Council set out the information it had considered, which included all the medical information that had been submitted. It explained in detail why she did not meet the criteria for band A. It also explained the reasons why band C was appropriate. There was no fault in the decision-making process and the decision is in line with its published scheme. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We have upheld the complaint about a delay in issuing the review decision because the Council has agreed to resolve it by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. We will not investigate the complaint about a delay in allocating a support worker because the Council has apologised, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate a complaint about the review decision because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman