Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application, including decisions about the award of priority points. Based on current evidence we have ended our investigation because Mr X has since been provided with settled accommodation by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his housing application, including decisions about the award of priority points.
2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
3. Mr X wants the Council to reassess his application and award additional priority, including medical priority, ground-floor priority, harassment points, and overcrowding points.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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))

5. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

9. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance recommends Council’s complete reviews within eight weeks.  

Council’s allocations scheme

11. The Council operates a points-based allocation scheme. It awards applicant’s different amounts of points, based on their circumstances. This includes points due to homelessness, needing to move for medical reasons, harassment and violence, and other circumstances.
12. “To be assessed as eligible for housing and health related points, you must demonstrate that:
• your medical condition is being caused or made worse by your housing conditions, and
• your current property cannot be improved or adapted to meet your needs at a reasonable cost, and
• rehousing is likely to significantly improve your condition.”
13. As far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards 150 points if a medical condition and housing circumstances are having a serious impact on someone’s health and wellbeing and rehousing is necessary, and 500 points if you are in urgent need or rehousing.
14. As far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards 75 points to individuals who are fleeing harassment or violence and rehousing would be desirable, and 600 points if in urgent need of rehousing.
15. The Council has a two-stage review process for housing allocation applications, including medical priority:
• Stage one – a review by the officer who made the decision within 14 days.
• Stage two – a review by a more senior officer within 56 days. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraphs 9.2.4 – 9.2.5)

What happened

16. Mr X lives with his partner in a house with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities. In 2023, he applied to join the Council’s housing register and requested housing and health priority points. The Council decided he was not eligible to join the housing register and did not award any priority points.
17. Mr X requested a stage one review of this decision. A medical adviser reviewed the information provided and the Council upheld its original decision, stating that Mr X’s and his partner’s medical conditions were unlikely to improve through a change in accommodation.
18. Mr X then requested a stage two review and submitted further supporting evidence. A second medical adviser reviewed the information and after considering the wider circumstances affecting the household advised the Council to accept Mr X onto the housing register. The Council agreed and awarded 150 housing and health points, placed him in Band B, and provided login details to allow him to bid for properties.
19. Mr X subsequently submitted additional medical evidence and asked the Council to increase his housing and health points to 500. He also updated his housing application to report physical and verbal assaults by a neighbour and requested harassment points. In addition, he said he required an additional bedroom and requested hardship points.
20. In May 2025, Mr X complained to the Council, saying it had failed to properly consider the medical and police evidence he had provided and had not awarded appropriate priority points.
21. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It said Mr X could update his housing application if there was a significant change in his medical condition or circumstances. The Council confirmed it had already updated his application and was reviewing the medical and harassment information. It also confirmed he was not eligible for an additional bedroom because he and his partner occupied a one-bedroom property.
22. Mr X escalated his complaint, repeating his request for increased medical priority and harassment points. He also said he was unable to bid on properties and wanted this resolved.
23. Later, the Council awarded Mr X 75 harassment points and advised him that he could request a stage one review of this decision if he disagreed.
24. In July 2025, the Council issued its final complaint response explaining the complaints process was not the appropriate route for reviewing housing allocation points.
25. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

My findings

26. Since bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X has been offered and accepted a one-bedroom property through the Council’s housing allocation scheme.
27. This means Mr X has now secured settled accommodation. The outcome he has achieved is more favourable than the remedies he was seeking when he brought his complaint to us, which included increased priority points and the ability to bid for properties.
28. As Mr X has already achieved housing through the Council’s allocation process, further investigation into the Council’s earlier decisions about priority points would not lead to a different or more meaningful outcome for him.
29. In these circumstances, it would not be a good use of public resources to continue the investigation. I am therefore ending my investigation as further investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Decision

30. I have ended my investigation and do not uphold Mr X’s complaint. I cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome from further investigation as he has already secured settled accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman