The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s consideration of her housing priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its policy.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider her family's needs when assessing her housing application. She says the Council relied on general information about her daughter's condition rather than the evidence she provided about the severity of the condition and the impact on her family. She also says the Council failed to properly consider whether alternative sleeping arrangements in the property were suitable. She wants the Council to award her higher housing priority.
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 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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register because her property is overcrowded. She explained her daughter has a medical condition which affects her sleep and impacts other members of the household because her daughter shares a bedroom with her siblings. Miss X provided some supporting medical information from her GP.
The Council considered the evidence and awarded low medical priority. Miss X requested a review of that decision, but the Council upheld its original assessment and explained the medical evidence was insufficient to justify a higher medical priority, and it referred to a lack of evidence of specialist involvement relating to the daughter's condition. The Council advised Miss X it would reconsider the application if further medical evidence was provided.
We are 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 has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
The Council considered the evidence Miss X provided and reached a decision in line with its policy. Although Miss X disagrees with the Council's assessment of that evidence, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the process it followed. The Council also considered whether alternative sleeping arrangements within the home could help alleviate the difficulties identified while Miss X remained on the housing register. This was a matter for the Council's professional judgement. It remains open to Miss X to provide further medical evidence to the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s application of its policy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman