Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not awarded medical priority for her. This means she continues to live in a property that does not meet her needs and cannot be adapted to do so.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council considered Ms X’s request for medical priority in November 2024. It decided her two children needed to have their own rooms to meet their medical needs and awarded band 3 on the housing register.
6. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision on 20 November 2024 and provided an occupational therapist (OT) report in support. The Council carried out its review in March 2025 and apologised for its delay in doing so. It awarded band 3 medical priority for the two children but not for Ms X.
7. Ms X was unhappy with the outcome and complained to us.
8. Following further correspondence with Ms X, the reviewing officer agreed to award band 3 medical priority for Ms X as well. The officer said there was no confirmed medical condition that prevented Ms X using stairs to access her property, although they acknowledged this was with some difficulty. The evidence did not show her current housing had a severed impact on her medical conditions so the threshold for a higher band was not met.
9. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged delays in responding to Ms X following the review outcome for which it apologised.

My assessment

10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. We can consider its decision-making, but unless there was fault in its decision-making, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. Records seen show the Council considered the information provided and its allocations scheme at each decision point, and that it explained the reasons for its decision. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation. The Council apologised for delays in carrying out the review and responding to Ms X following the review. This did not cause sufficient injustice to Ms X to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman