Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council discriminated against her family on the grounds of woman’s health and refused to increase her priority on the housing register. She also says the Council ignored her son’s health. Ms X wants the Council to increase her band from D to C.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 Ms X and the Council. This includes the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s banding request and the medical evidence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The allocations policy says the Council will place households in band D if they lack one bedroom. The Council can award medical priority if someone has a medical condition which is affected by their housing conditions. The policy says the impact of overcrowding does not attract medical priority.
5. Ms X lives in a two bedroom property with a son and daughter. She is on the housing register in band D because she needs another bedroom.
6. In November 2023 Ms X applied for medical priority. She explained that she and her daughter have woman’s health issues. She also said her son has a medical condition. Ms X provided medical evidence.
7. The Council decided not to award medical evidence because it said there is no evidence the accommodation affects the medical condition of any family member. It said the issue is one of overcrowding rather than medical priority.
8. Ms X disagrees with the decision. She says the Council has discriminated against her in terms of woman’s health and is wrong to say woman’s issues are not a medical condition. Ms X says she asked for a review in November and the Council did not respond until May.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice. Ms X lacks a bedroom and band D is the correct band for families who need an extra bedroom. The Council considered medical priority but decided the evidence does not show Ms X’s current home affects the medical condition of any family member; her son’s medical condition was not ignored. I have considered the evidence and the allocations policy and there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s decision not to award medical priority. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to decide what band someone should be in or to re-make the Council’s decision.
10. Ms X says the Council discriminated against her and her daughter but there is nothing to support this allegation. The Council considered their health needs but, as for all applicants, male and female, it only awards medical priority if the medical condition is directly affected by the housing conditions. The Council does not award medical priority simply because someone has a medical condition. I appreciate the lack of space might make it harder to manage the conditions but that is linked to overcrowding for which Ms X already has priority.
11. The Council did take some time to provide Ms X with the outcome of her banding review request. But, as the decision was to confirm that band D is the correct band, any delay has not caused an injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman