Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase his priority banding. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives with his wife and two children in a two-bedroom privately rented property. The Council has awarded him Band D based on overcrowding after it assessed the household as lacking one bedroom.
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to sufficiently assess his request for a higher priority banding. He says the Council failed to consider the medical evidence he provided and his family’s medical needs when awarding him a low priority banding of Band D. Mr X says he should be awarded higher banding based mainly on his youngest child’s medical needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy (effective from January 2020, as available online).

Back to top

My assessment

8. In October 2024, the Council reassessed the health needs of Mr X’s family after he sent new information, including an occupational therapist report from August 2024 detailing recommendations about his youngest child’s housing needs. It refused to increase Mr X’s priority banding, meaning he remained in Band D.
9. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision.
10. In January 2025, on review, the Council decided to uphold its original decision.
11. In its review decision and complaints responses, the Council gave clear reasons with reference to the evidence provided and in line with its allocations policy. It explained that, in response to Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to obtain updated recommendations from its independent medical assessor (IMA) before making its decision, the Council clarified these were received in October 2024. It said its IMA had considered the recent occupational therapist report before recommending that overcrowding was the main issue the family faced.
12. The Council considered all the information and medical evidence provided by Mr X, as well as the recommendations made by its IMA, before deciding that the family’s needs, including his youngest child’s medical needs, did not meet the threshold for Band C (high medical or disability priority). Rather, it considered Band D was the highest priority banding it could award because the family’s housing needs were linked to overcrowding. This decision is in line with the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy.
13. Mr X says the Council’s decision conflicts with the occupational therapist report, which said the property did not meet his youngest child’s safety needs based on the floor surface in the bathroom. The Council did not accept this provided evidence to support increasing Mr X’s banding. The Council decided the issues with the bathroom floor surface could be resolved through other actions, such as installing non-slip flooring.
14. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman