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. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask for a further review of his case if he has sufficient new evidence to support it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application priority. He says on the last review carried out in 2024 he was progressed to Band B but this was on overcrowding grounds and he says that he has significant medical reasons for moving which have been overlooked.

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 responses. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he is a council tenant who needs to move to a bigger home due to his medical needs involving his sight and overcrowding of his current home. He provided some evidence of his medical condition to support a review in 2024 and the Council increased his banding to Band B. He says this was only due to overcrowding when his son joined the family and that no medical priority was awarded.
6. The Council says that Mr X is correctly prioritised on Band B based on the information he provided. The allocations policy awards Band B to applicants in serious medical need or who are overcrowded by more than one bedroom. This means that Band B applied to Mr X’s application on either or both grounds. The Council says it accepts he has moderate medical needs but this did not warrant a higher medical priority.
7. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in 2024 and in its Stage 2 response the Council said that if he had new evidence from a medical professional that his condition had significantly deteriorated he could submit a new review request. For an applicant to merit Band A on medical grounds they have to show evidence of a critical medical need as Band B is applied to those applicants with a serious medical need.
8. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ 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. In this case Mr X was assessed on the information he provided and the Council considered he was in Band B. If he has new information it is reasonable for him to ask for a review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask for a further review of his case if he has sufficient new evidence to support it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman