Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s application for medical priority on the housing register. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for Mr X’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

• Made factual errors when carrying out a review of his medical priority.
• Failed to properly consider his medical information when deciding what medical priority to award to him and failed to consider the impact on ‘normal life’.
• Obtained independent medical advice which was not in accordance with its housing allocation policy, failed to disclose it had obtained this advice and passed his personal information to the independent medical advisor without his consent.
• Refused to review its decision on his medical priority despite Mr X providing further medical information.

2. Mr X considers the Council’s decision to award band C is therefore wrong. He wants the Council to award a higher priority to reflect his accommodation is having a significant impact on his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Some years ago, Mr X qualified for the Council’s housing register and the Council awarded band C medical priority. In late 2024 he requested a review of his medical priority due to a deterioration of his mental health. The Council did not increase Mr X’s medical priority so he requested a review of its decision.
8. The Council reviewed its decision in February 2025 but did not increase Mr X’s medical priority. Mr X complained that there were factual errors in the review decision and the Council had not considered all his medical evidence. The Council agreed to carry out the review again. We will not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint. By carrying out the review again, the Council provided an appropriate and proportionate response to Mr X’s concerns. We would not achieve anything more for Mr X by investigating this aspect of his complaint.
9. The Council sent its review decision to Mr X in early March 2025. The Council’s letter explained it had decided not to increase Mr X’s medical priority. It considered Mr X’s ongoing mental health difficulties were not directly linked to his current accommodation.
10. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what medical priority should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council has followed the proper processes when making its decision.
11. The Council’s review letter of March 2025 shows it considered information from Mr X’s medical professionals. It also provides a reasoned explanation for why the Council considered Mr X’s ongoing medical conditions were not directly linked to his current accommodation. The letter explains why the Council considered Mr X’s medical priority banding should not be increased from band C. We note Mr X considers the Council should have explicitly considered if his medical need had a severe impact on his normal life in accordance with the allocations policy. But the Council’s review letter shows it considered the impact of Mr X’s medical conditions and explained why they did not warrant an increase in his priority. So, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify an investigation of Mr X’s complaint.
12. The Council obtained an opinion from its independent medical advisor which Mr X was not aware of. The Council did not list this information in the review decision and there is no evidence the Council considered it when making its decision. So, any fault is unlikely to have caused significant enough injustice to Mr X to justify investigating this aspect of his complaint.
13. Mr X considers the Council passed his medical information to its independent medical advisor without his consent. In late 2024, Mr X signed a medical consent form which said the Council may seek its medical advisor’s recommendations. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this aspect of Mr X’s complaint. In any event, it is open to Mr X to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner if he considers the Council wrongly disclosed his personal information.
14. Mr X sent further information from a medical professional following the Council’s review. The Council initially told Mr X that it had attached the letter to his application, but it would not review his case any further. In response to further contact from Mr X, the Council said it did not consider there had been a factual, significant or material change. If we investigated this aspect of Mr X’s complaint, it is likely we would find the Council to be at fault. The Council’s allocation policy at the time provided that medical priority would be kept under review and could change if there was a material change in the medical condition of the applicant. The Council did not give any reasons for its decision that the letter did not show there had been a material change in Mr X’s medical condition since the review. We therefore cannot be satisfied that the Council properly considered the further letter from the medical professional and whether it showed a change in Mr X’s medical condition. As a result, Mr X may have missed the opportunity for a further review of his priority.
15. We invited the Council to consider whether Mr X’s medical professional’s letter showed a material change of condition and to fully explain its decision to Mr X. If the Council considers the letter shows a material change of condition that warrants increased priority then we invite the Council to backdate the increased priority to 13 March 2025. This is the date it first noted the letter.

Back to top

Agreed Action

16. The Council agreed to consider whether the letter from Mr X’s medical professional shows a material change in Mr X’s medical condition which would warrant a further review of his priority. If the Council considers the letter shows a material change in Mr X’s medical condition which warrants increased priority then it will backdate the increased priority to 13 March 2025. The Council should take the above action within one month of our final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered Mr X’s application for medical priority on the housing register. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint by providing a proportionate remedy for Mr X’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman