Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly review Mr Y’s rehousing application on medical grounds. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to properly consider Mr Y’s application for rehousing on medical grounds. She said the Council failed to:
• properly consider evidence of Mr Y’s health condition during the review of his application, disregarding the severity of his condition;
• adequately address her concerns in its complaint responses; and
• act on her reports of noise pollution, which she said disrupted Mr Y’s sleep.
2. Ms X said the Council’s failure to take appropriate action led to Mr Y’s death. Ms. X said the Council's failings caused her avoidable distress, requiring her to spend extra time and resources pursuing the matter.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y, a social housing resident, submitted a transfer application to the Council in July 2023, stating medical reasons. He requested a two-bedroom, ideally ground-floor property, due to the impact of his chronic health condition. However, the Council decided he was only eligible to bid on properties of the same type and size he already occupied, and did not award him priority on medical grounds.
8. In October 2023, Ms X requested a review of the decision, stating bidding on properties of the same size would not provide relief to the situation that prompted the transfer request. Over the following months, she provided additional information, including a medical report about a medical incident Mr Y had, as well as a complaint regarding noise pollution impacting his condition. Mr Y passed away in February 2024, and the Council issued its final decision shortly thereafter, unaware of his death.
9. The Council's decision review outlined the information it considered and addressed the points raised by Ms X in her review request. It stated noise factors are not typically taken into account when awarding medical priority but noted the landlord should take remedial action to reduce the impact of environmental noise. Ms X said the Council’s review process took too long. The Council said Ms X and Mr Y provided additional relevant information, prompting the Council to seek further advice from its medical advisers, delaying the Council’s response.
10. In this case, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision - making process to justify investigating. The Council assessed Mr Y’s application in line with its Allocation Scheme; it decided to seek further advice when the complainants submitted additional information leading to a delay that was not excessive or unreasonable, it used a range of sources to complete the decision review; it set out its reasons why it did not award priority on medical grounds.
11. Ms X said the Council failed to adequately address her concerns in its complaint responses, which she described as inaccurate and filled with excuses to avoid rehousing Mr Y. As we are not investigating the substantive matter of the complaint it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Ms X’s complaint, and we will therefore not investigate.
12. Ms X believes the Council’s actions led to Mr Y’s death and wants the Council to compensate the family for the avoidable distress she said it caused. Whether the Councils actions caused personal injury or death, and whether compensation should be awarded, are legal matters for a court to determine. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because we could not achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman