Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision the family are adequately housed. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision her family is adequately housed. She said it failed to properly consider the medical evidence about her son, Z’s, disability needs. She says, as a result of Council failings, the family remain in housing that is overcrowded and does not meet Z’s disability needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X applied to join the Council’s housing register on the basis the family’s housing was overcrowded and did not meet Z’s medical needs. She said Z needed his own room due to his severe autism and she had concerns about his safety, particularly on the stairs.
6. In its review decision, the Council considered her concerns. It explained:
• the medical evidence indicated Z needed constant supervision to keep him sage, which included on the stairs. It noted the property had no internal stairs, so the risks only related to accessing and leaving the property. It concluded that the concerns about the stairs did not make the property unsuitable;
• the family needed three bedrooms. It noted their current property had two bedrooms, but they could use the sitting room as a bedroom for the parents and this would mean Z could have his own room. Since the family were not lacking two or more bedrooms, they were not entitled to priority on the basis of overcrowding according to the Council’s published allocations scheme;
• the evidence did not show their current housing was adversely affecting Z’s condition in a major way so the application did not meet the threshold for medical priority; and
• explained other options the family could consider for rehousing.

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision is correct. We can consider whether there was any fault in the way the Council made its decision. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
8. The Council has considered the concerns Ms X raised about her current housing. It has explained its reasons for deciding the criteria for overcrowding and medical priority were not met. Its decision is in line with its published allocations scheme. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman