The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant cannot join the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, disagrees with the Council’s decision that she cannot join the housing register. She says the Council made assumptions and failed to consider her circumstances as a special case. Ms X wants someone independent to review her application.
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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Ms X and the Council. This includes the correspondence about the application and the supporting evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
People must have a local connection to join the housing register. This means they must have lived in the area continuously for the five years immediately prior to applying. If the person does not have a local connection the Council may consider allowing them to join the register if exceptional circumstances apply.
People can apply for medical priority. Medical priority is awarded if the accommodation has a severe or major adverse effect on the medical condition of someone in the household.
Ms X applied to join the housing register. She submitted medical evidence regarding her son. She explained the property is unsuitable due to steps in the back garden and a lack of safe space in the garden.
The Council decided Ms X does not qualify because she has not lived in the area for five years. The Council considered Ms X’s medical evidence to determine if she could join as an exception. The Council decided not to allow her to join as an exception because there is nothing to suggest the property has a severe or major adverse effect on her son. The Council suggested ways she could perhaps make the garden safer for her son.
Ms X is critical of the Council’s response in terms of the outcome and the way the responses were written.
I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X has not lived in the area for five years so the decision that she does not qualify reflects the policy. The Council also followed the policy by considering her case as an exception but decided she did does not meet the threshold for medical priority. I have read the policy and the medical evidence and there is nothing to suggest fault in the way the Council reached this decision or explained it to Ms X.
We are not an appeal body and it is not my role to decide if Ms X qualifies for the housing register. I can only consider if there was fault in the way the Council made its decision and I see no suggestion of fault. Ms X disagrees with the outcome but that does not mean the Council has done anything wrong.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman