The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of Miss X’s housing application. The Council wrongly gave Miss X a priority star for statutory overcrowding, but that did not cause significant enough injustice for us to take further action. The Council properly reached its decision about medical priority.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council removed a priority star for statutory overcrowding it had given her housing application. She also complains the Council did not give her application enough medical priority. Miss X states this affected her and her children mentally, emotionally and physically due to their overcrowded living conditions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council explained, with reference to the rooms and people in Miss X’s home, why Miss X’s situation does not meet the legal definition of statutory overcrowding. That explanation was in line with the law. So there was no fault in the Council removing the priority star for statutory overcrowding.
Instead, the fault was in the Council giving that star in the first place 2017. That fault was in Miss X’s favour. I appreciate the fault might have raised Miss X’s expectations. However, I note it did not result in the Council offering a property then withdrawing it because of the priority star error. Overall, I do not consider the Council’s fault here caused Miss X a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing this point further.
Miss X says the Council suggested one of her children could sleep in the living room. That is not what the Council said. It said it was permissible and not uncommon in the area for the living room to be used for sleeping and it was up to Miss X to decide the sleeping arrangements for her and her two children. I do not find fault on this point.
Miss X also asked the Council to increase her priority on the housing register due to her family’s medical circumstances. The Council gave her application the ‘moderate’ rather than ‘severe’ level of medical priority. Its decision letter: Explained the Council had considered information from Miss X and medical professionals about Miss X’s and her children’s medical conditions and disabilities; Cited the Council’s policy on when to award the various levels of medical priority; and Gave reasons for awarding the moderate level of priority.
Therefore, the evidence suggests the Council reached this decision properly. As paragraph 3 explained, that means we cannot criticise the Council’s decision, albeit Miss X is entitled to disagree with the Council.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the fault with the priority star for statutory overcrowding did not cause significant enough injustice and the Council properly reached its decision about medical priority.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman