Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing register application for medical priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to properly consider her medical evidence when she applied to join the housing register. She says she feels anxious, hopeless and trapped due to the Council’s actions. She would like the Council to award her medical priority for her housing application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

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 do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 the complainant which includes the Council’s response.
5. I considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
6. And I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X explains that her child has a medical condition that is affected adversely by their current accommodation. She explains that her own mental health is also affected. She says she provided a range of professional and medical evidence to the Council. But, she says, that was not given sufficient weight by the Council when it decided she was not eligible to join the housing register and qualify for any medical priority.
8. The Council’s response explains that its decision has been upheld by two different senior officers. It says Ms X’s application did not qualify for its housing register as it did not find her current accommodation to be unsuitable for her housing needs. And eligibility for the Housing Register depends on a need for housing.
9. The Council also found her application did not qualify for any medical priority. The Council notes the medical evidence and advises having a medical condition itself will not warrant priority. Rather, it explains, the evidence must show that it is adversely affecting the medical condition, or the medical condition will be alleviated by rehousing. The Council said it was willing to consider any further evidence Ms X wished to provide in the future.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. We will not investigate. There is no evidence to suggest the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it considered Ms X’s application and when it made decisions on her application for medical priority. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing register and medical priority application. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman