Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider medical evidence she provided in relation to her housing application and failed to treat her as homeless and provide interim accommodation. We cannot consider whether the Council was at fault for not treating Ms X as homeless as she has already sought a remedy through the courts. We find no fault with how the Council considered Ms X’s medical evidence.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly consider medical evidence she provided in relation to her housing application. Ms X also complains the Council failed to treat her as homeless and provide her with interim accommodation. As a result, Ms X says she has spent more time than necessary in unsuitable accommodation and her housing application does not reflect the needs of her household.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)
4. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated how the Council considered Ms X’s medical evidence when deciding whether to apply a three-bedroom need to her housing application.
7. I have not considered how the Council decided whether Ms X should be considered homeless and whether it should place her in emergency interim accommodation. This is because Ms X sought a remedy on this issue through the courts and received a court determination on the matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

10. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
12. The Council’s allocation scheme is detailed on its website.

What happened

13. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
14. Ms X is on the Council’s housing register in Band A and registered as having a two-bedroom need.
15. Ms X asked the Council to review her application to reflect a three-bedroom need explaining her children could not share a bedroom for medical reasons. Ms X provided the Council with medical evidence to support this.
16. The Council acknowledged the evidence Ms X had provided and explained it had referred this to independent medical advisors for their professional opinion.
17. Once the Council received the advice of the medical advisors, it wrote to Ms X again. The Council explained it had considered the medical evidence Ms X had provided as well as the advice of the independent medical advisors. The Council said while it understood it may be a preference for Ms X’s child to have their own room, based on the evidence it did not deem this to be necessary on medical grounds, and the independent medical adviser shared that view. The Council explained Ms X remained able to bid on two-bedroom properties.

Analysis

18. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to take a second look at Ms X’s request to decide whether it should have been approved. Rather, we consider the process the Council followed to make its own decision, having regard to all the evidence Ms X had provided. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Ms X disagrees with it.
19. The Council promptly considered all the evidence Ms X provided and the advice it received from the independent medical adviser before making its decision that there was no medical requirement for Ms X’s application to reflect a three-bedroom need. The Council wrote to Ms X to explain its reasoning for this, and I do not find fault with its decision-making process.
20. Ms X has said the Council relied on flawed advice from the independent medical adviser to decline her request for a three-bedroom need. However, the Council made it clear the advice it received only formed part of its decision-making, and it considered everything Ms X had said and provided before coming to a decision. I do not find the Council at fault here.

Back to top

Decision

21. I cannot investigate whether the Council was at fault for not considering Ms X to be homeless and not providing interim accommodation. I find no fault with how the Council considered medical evidence relating to Ms X’s housing application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman