Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out a review of its decision he did not qualify for medical priority. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay him £100 as a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty he suffered due to the delay.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he asked the Council for a review of its housing register decision in June 2024, but did not receive an outcome. Mr X considers his priority band and effective date are wrong, which will delay him being rehoused. He also complained the Council had sought the advice of a medical adviser without his knowledge or consent and wrongly shared his medical evidence with them.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Consulting medical adviser

6. In 2024 Mr X sent the Council evidence of his medical conditions in support of his application to join its housing register because he wanted to be rehoused. When considering whether he met the criteria for medical priority, the Council consulted a medical adviser. Mr X said he did not know about the referral to a medical adviser until the Council issued its decision in June 2024.
7. Councils are entitled to seek advice from a medical adviser when considering applications for medical priority, which is standard practice because Council officers do not usually have medical expertise. Councils do not need to seek specific consent from applicants to share information with the medical adviser as this is part of the application process.
8. The Council provided a copy of the medical assessment with its decision, which explained why he did not meet the criteria for medical priority.
9. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify this. Further, the use of a medical adviser assisted the Council to understand how Mr X’s medical conditions may be affected by his current housing, so it did not cause him an injustice. Any injustice in relation to the communications about the use of a medical adviser is not sufficiently sufficient to justify further investigation.
10. There is no indication of a data breach, but if Mr X wishes to pursue a complaint about that, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider it.

Delay in carrying out a review

11. Mr X asked for a review of the Council’s decision in June 2024. Mr X also complained to us, which meant he and the Council were involved in responding to our various enquiries and draft decisions for several months. Further, the Council told us that it had seen a 60% increase in medical priority appeals after changes were made to its allocations policy, although it has now recruited additional resource to the reviews team. These factors contributed to a delay in carrying out the review and a decision was not issued until April 2025.
12. On review, the Council upheld the original decision that Mr X did not meet the criteria for medical priority and explained its reasons. It said that, as Mr X was only eligible due to being 55 or over, band C was appropriate, and the effective date was the date of his fifty-fifth birthday.
13. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to check whether the Council’s decision is correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. In considering the process, we note the law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
14. At review, the Council considered all the information Mr X provided and its allocations scheme. Its decision addressed the main medical conditions and explained why the impact of Mr X’s current housing on those conditions did not justify awarding medical priority. It also explained why the effective date was Mr X’s fifty-fifth birthday. Apart from the delay in making the decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
15. The law says councils should carry out reviews within two months, but the Council took just over nine months in this case. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for the long delay in issuing a review decision.
16. The review upheld the original decision, which means Mr X has not suffered a significant injustice as the priority band and effective date remained correct throughout. Therefore, his injustice is limited to the uncertainty he suffered whilst waiting for the review outcome.
17. Given the significant delay in issuing a review decision, we asked the Council to take specific action to remedy the injustice caused. It has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• Pay him £100 as a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty caused.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We have upheld the complaint about delay in carrying out a review. We will not investigate further because the Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman