Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We will not investigate the complaint about delayed responses because the Council provided a satisfactory response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, says the Council delayed responding and has not properly considered her request for more priority on the housing register. Ms X wants the Council to place her in a higher band on the housing register.

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
• we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) &(7), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Ms X. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about the Council’s banding decision. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X is in band C on the housing register. This is because she lives with family and lacks her own space. Ms X says the family relationships and circumstances have a negative impact on her health.
6. In 2024 Ms X applied for medical priority and submitted supporting evidence. The Council reviewed the application and confirmed band C is the correct band and she does not qualify for medical priority. It referred to the allocations policy and said band C is correct as she lacks her own space. The Council explained that band C is the correct band for people whose accommodation has a moderate impact on their health; band B is for people who have a serious medical need arising from their accommodation. The Council invited Ms X to make contact regarding information about moving into the private sector.
7. The Council said it had delayed responding to some of Ms X’s emails. It apologised, explained the reasons for the delay, and offered £150 as a financial remedy.
8. I will not investigate the banding issue because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council assessed Ms X’s application for medical priority, and cross-refenced it to the allocations policy, but decided the evidence does not show she has a serious medical need to move which is what would be required to qualify for band B. The Council did not need to speak to Ms X, as she says she would have liked, to assess the degree to which her accommodation has a medical impact. Even if the Council decided there was a moderate medical impact this would not lead to an increase in Ms X’s priority because she is already in band C. Ms X is concerned her family may ask her to leave but the Council can only assess an application based on the current position. The Council’s decision reflects the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation.
9. The Council delayed replying to some of Ms X’s emails. There is no reason to investigate this part of the complaint because the Council has offered a fair remedy. It apologised, explained what had gone wrong and offered a payment of £150. There is nothing more we would ask the Council to do.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in relation to the banding and because the Council has provided a satisfactory remedy for the delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman