Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s housing priority as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains on behalf of Ms X. She complains that the Council failed to award medical priority to Ms X and failed to provide sufficient support to allow her to move from unsuitable accommodation. Ms X says that, as a result, she has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X lives in shared accommodation with men and women which she considers has a significant impact on her mental health. Ms X says she cannot share with men due to previous domestic abuse.
6. Ms X applied for the Council’s housing register and requested medical priority. The Council assessed Ms X’s application and placed her in the priority homeseeker group so she could bid on properties. The Council did not award medical priority.
7. Ms X requested a review of the decision not to award medical priority. Ms X considered the Council should give her emergency rehousing status as her mental health was severely affected by her living conditions. The Council considered Ms X’s review but did not uphold it.
8. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what housing priority should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper process when making its decision. The Council’s review decision letter shows it considered Ms X’s medical and other evidence and her reasons for wanting emergency rehousing and medical priority. The letter explains why the Council considered Ms X’s reasons and evidence did not warrant emergency rehousing status or medical priority. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
9. In the review decision and in response to her complaint, the Council explained to Ms X that she could make a homeless application. I also understand the Council had a meeting with Ms X to explore other housing options. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council has supported Ms X to move.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman