The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence to fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register. She was awarded band C with 125 points but considers she should be in band A or B due to her child, Y’s medical needs.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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 Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
When Ms X applied to the Council’s housing register, it initially said she needed three bedrooms and awarded priority band D with 25 medical points. Ms X asked for a review and provided further medical evidence. On review, the Council awarded band C priority with 75 medical points. At a further review, the Council accepted Y needed their own room, so added 50 points for the family being short of one bedroom. At a third review, it upheld the second review decision.
In response to an enquiry by Ms X’s MP, the Council considered whether it was appropriate to award additional preference priority rehousing status, but decided this was not appropriate.
As part of its reviews, the Council consulted its medical adviser (CMA) and its psychiatric adviser (CPA), both of whom considered the evidence separately and both concluded 75 points for Y’s medical conditions was appropriate. In its review decision in January 2024, the Council confirmed it has considered the advice of the CMA and CPA but had given greater weight to the medical evidence Ms X provided. It explained in detail why it concluded 75 points was appropriate.
The Council also considered Ms X’s application at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints process. It concluded Ms X’s application had been assessed in line with its allocations scheme. It also considered whether the application met its criteria for priority rehousing and explained its reasons for deciding the criteria was not met. It responded to an enquiry from Ms X’s M.P.
We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision is correct. Unless there was fault in its decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
The Council has taken the steps we would expect. At each stage, it has considered the further medical evidence Ms X provided. It has also consulted medical advisers. In addition to carrying out reviews, it considered the application through its complaints process and in response to an MP enquiry. It explained its reasons for deciding 75 medical points is appropriate. And it has said it will reconsider the application if Ms X provides fresh medical evidence.
The Council also explained Ms X can make a homelessness application if she considers it is not reasonable for her to remain in her current housing and provided a link to its online application form.
On this basis, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to justify our involvement, so we will not investigate further.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman