Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has not rehoused her despite her being on its housing register since 2015. The Council has considered her priority band appeal and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained she has been on the Council’s housing register since 2015 but has not been rehoused, despite having reported domestic abuse in 2016 and both her and her mother having medical conditions.
2. Ms X said that, as a result of Council failings, she remains in a property where she does not feel safe and which is unsuitable for her mother, wo cannot manage the stairs. She said their health conditions had deteriorated whilst they have been waiting for the Council to help them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Ms X lives with her mother Mrs Y in a one bedroom property. The Council accepted a housing register application in 2015. In 2021, the Council’s allocations policy was changed, and their application was placed in band C. Ms X complained their application was not awarded the correct priority at that point.
9. In November 2023, Ms X asked the Council to review their medical priority. As she had not had a response, she complained in April 2024 and provided further medical evidence. In its response, the Council confirmed it would consider the medical evidence she had provided but there would be a delay of several months before it could do so. It said that, due to the number of households on its housing register and the shortage of social housing, applicants were waiting longer to be rehoused.
10. In August 2024, the Council carried out medical assessments. It decided Ms X met the criteria for medical priority and Mrs Y had significant medical need. It set out recommendations for the type of property they needed and awarded band B priority from November 2023. It explained why they did not meet the criteria for band A, the highest priority band.
11. Ms X asked for an appeal in September 2024. The Council reviewed the medical assessments and decided Ms X did not meet the criteria for medical priority. As Mrs Y was still assessed as having a significant medical need, priority band B remained appropriate and the type of property they needed was not changed.

My assessment

12. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events they are complaining about. Ms X did not complain to us until September 2024. I have seen no evidence Ms X could not have complained to us sooner, so there are no good reasons for investigating the period prior to November 2023 when she asked for a review of their medical priority.
13. There was a delay in assessing Ms X and Mrs Y’s medical priority between November 2023 and August 2024. Given the number of households waiting and the average waiting time for a two bedroom property in band B, it is unlikely they have missed an offer as a result of that delay. Further, the Council back-dated their band B priority to the date they asked for the review of their medical priority, which was in line with its published scheme. There is, therefore, insufficient injustice caused to justify further investigation.
14. Since the complaint to us, the Council has considered their appeal. We are not an appeal body, so it is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision is correct, but we can consider whether there was fault in its decision-making. The Council has considered the extensive medical evidence provided and its published allocations scheme. It has explained its reasons for deciding Ms X does not meet the criteria for medical priority. It has also explained why the application does not meet the criteria for band A. Its decision is in line with its published scheme and there was no delay in carrying out the appeal. We will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late, the delay in carry out the medical assessment did not cause a significant injustice and there was insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the appeal to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman