Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. We have upheld part of the complaint, and the Council has agreed to take appropriate action. It would therefore not be proportionate to investigate.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider her sons medical needs when assessing her housing application. Ms X stated the process has been frustrating and has harmed her son’s mental and physical health. She would like the Council to look again at her application and award medical priority banding on the housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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)
4. 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
• we are satisfied with the actions an organization has taken or proposes to take

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X said the Council did not properly consider her application to move to a different property due to medical needs. The Council assessed her housing application and awarded her Band D in 2023. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision, she argued that she should have been awarded a higher priority band due to her son’s health. She said anti-social behaviour in the area was have an adverse impact on his health. The Council reviewed the decision in 2024 and upheld its original decision that it did not consider Miss X’s needs warranted medical priority.
8. Ms X complained to the Council in 2025 and stated the Council had not considered her son’s medical needs.
9. In the Council’s complaint response, it confirmed the issues Ms X had raised were not something it could award medical priority on. It referenced its Allocations Policy which stated that health priority would only be awarded where the housing situation presented a considerable risk to health and/or safety. It also referred Ms X’s complaints about her home to the relevant housing department and invited her to discuss her housing matters with the Housing Options Team.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means that 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.
11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with the Council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
12. The Council considered the information provided in line with its housing allocations policy. I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council considered the application which would suggest that Ms X should be placed in a higher banding.
13. However, if we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely that we would find fault with the Council for the delay in informing Ms X of the outcome of the review of its banding decision. Ms X requested a review of the decision in January 2024, the Council informed her of the outcome of the review in October 2024, nine months after it was requested. This was a delay of seven months.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. The Council agreed to resolve Ms X’s complaint by taking the following action within four-weeks of our final decision.
1. Remind Reviewing Officers to ensure that reviews are carried out within eight weeks.
2. Apologise to Ms X, in line with out Guidance Guidance on remedies – Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for the avoidable frustration caused by the delay in conducting the review and informing her of the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman