Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in rehousing her because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in rehousing her and failure to properly consider her son, Y’s medical needs. She also complained it refused to make adaptations to her current property to meet her son’s needs, even though it may take months for her to be rehoused.
2. Ms X said that, as a result of the Council’s failings, the family were living in overcrowded accommodation that did not meet her son’s medical needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Priority band

6. The Council accepted Ms X’s application to its housing register in 2020 and awarded priority band C.
7. In early 2024 she completed a medical priority form setting out her son’s medical needs. The form stated she was waiting for support from an occupational therapist (OT) and social worker. Ms X provided supporting letters from a social worker and the child’s school in March 2024.
8. The Council requested a housing needs report from an OT, but this had not been received at the point its panel was due to consider the application. A Council officer advised Ms X that her application for extra priority was not likely to be successful without the OT report, but Ms X said she wanted to proceed. The panel did not award extra priority.
9. When the OT report was obtained on 25 June 2024, the Council reviewed the application and awarded band B, effective from that date. The Council explained it would also consider her for a direct let (offering a property without going through the usual bidding process).
10. Ms X appealed the decision because she considered the extra priority should be back-dated by a year to the date she completed the medical form. A fresh panel considered her appeal. It did not agree to back-date the extra priority because it said she was in the correct band to the point the OT report was received. It wrote to her with its decision.
11. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome and complained to us. She also said the Council had refused to carry out adaptations to her current property whilst she was waiting to be rehoused. The Council told us it had no record of a request for adaptations, but it had fitted window locks to improve security, and the OT’s recommendations were focussed on the family needed extra bedrooms, which could not be achieved in their current property.

My assessment

12. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We consider the processes the organisation followed when making its decision. Unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
13. The Council made appropriate enquiries after receiving the medical form, including requesting an OT report to understand Y’s medical needs and the impact of the current housing on him and his family. It considered the information it had at each stage and made decisions line with its published allocations scheme. And there was no undue delay in doing this.
14. Its scheme says, where there is a change of priority band, the band start date is the date the higher band was awarded. In this case, the higher band was based on the OT report, so it was appropriate the extra priority was awarded from the date that report was received.
15. The Council is also considering a direct let, which means it will allocate a suitable property outside the usual bidding scheme when one is identified, although this is still subject to a waiting list and there are other applicants who have been waiting longer than Ms X. In considering a direct let, the Council has again followed its published scheme.
16. Although I appreciate Ms X’s frustration and the impact of the wait on the family as a whole, we will not investigate further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman