The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mrs X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says it gave insufficient consideration to her son’s medical needs. She believes she should have medical priority for housing based on her son’s mental health condition.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X applied to the Council for housing because she says her current home which she moved to in 2021 is unsuitable for her family needs. She was awarded a low priority C-banding because the property was considered adequate for her needs. She asked the Council to review her case because she felt it had not taken her son’s mental health needs into consideration.
The Council reviewed her application and submitted her son’s medical information to an independent housing medical assessor. The outcome of the review was that her priority was unchanged by the assessment. Mrs X submitted further medical evidence and a second assessment was carried out. Again the outcome was that her son’s medical condition did not sufficiently affect her housing needs to warrant medical priority.
We will not uphold a complaint if the council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided, even if the applicant believes that the council should have given more priority to the application to move. It may be the case that, although they need to move urgently, there are other applicants who have an even greater need.
The Council has assessed Mrs X’s application and its medical professionals have considered that her son’s needs are not sufficient to change her current banding. It is not our role to question the judgement of the assessors in this matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman