Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in rehousing him. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in rehousing him after he said he did not want to return to his Council flat in 2022. He says that, as a result of the Council’s delay, he had to stay in a care home that was not meeting his needs for longer than he should have done.

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, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Mr X was living in a Council flat before being admitted to hospital after a stroke. Since his care and support needs had increased as a result of the stroke, Mr X was placed in a care home so he could be supported to recover. (Mr X’s complaint about the decision to place him in a care home and the costs of the residential care are being considered separately).
6. From 2022, Mr X consistently said he did not want to return to his Council flat, in part because he was worried that he would not be able to manage the steps to access the flat. He was advised to make an application to the Council’s housing register for rehousing. He did so and was awarded band 4 priority.
7. In July 2023 the Council carried out a medical assessment, but did not award any additional priority on the housing register. In its complaint response, it explained this was because there was insufficient evidence provided to support the application for medical priority.
8. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in rehousing him in September 2024. In response, the Council reviewed his housing register application, including new information Mr X had provided and information it already had. It explained the highest priority it could award for medical needs under the allocations policy was band 2. However, it had exercised discretion and placed him in band 1 because, following his hospital discharge, he was placed in a care home and the care home could no longer meet his needs. Band 1 priority was effective from October 2024.
9. Mr X has since been rehoused.

My assessment

10. The Council considered the information and evidence Mr X provided in 2022 and 2023 before deciding band 4 priority was appropriate. Mr X would have had the right to ask for a review of those decisions if he was unhappy and it was reasonable for him to have asked for a review at the time.
11. The Council considered the application again in October 2024 and exercised discretion to award band 1 priority in view of his particular circumstances. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way it made its decision to justify further investigation and there is no evidence to show it should have made that decision earlier. Therefore, we will not consider the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr 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