Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to award her housing application a higher priority for medical grounds which she says overlooked her housing needs. She asked for a review of the decision but the outcome was unsuccessful and she says her current home is affecting her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says her current housing is unsuitable for her family’s needs and that because of a lack of space she is suffering from mental health problems. She asked the Council to carry out a medical assessment because she believes she should have a higher banding priority because of her needs.
6. The Council asked its independent medical assessor to consider Mrs X’s medical needs and whether she should be awarded higher priority. The medical assessment concluded that her needs were mainly due to the physical conditions of her home in terms of size, repair and the neighbourhood and that her mental health needs did not meet the threshold for medical priority. It also concluded that she could manage a property with steps despite some physical issues.
7. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the outcome and asked for a review of the decision which she is entitled to under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 part 6. The Council carried out the review in January 2025 and it upheld the initial view that she did not warrant higher priority.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
10. In this case the Council considered Mrs X’s application case according to its allocations policy and the review considered the relevant information. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that she should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman