Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his housing register application because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award band B on its housing register and its refusal to agree an extra bedroom to meet his medical needs. Mr X said the Council had not properly considered the medical evidence he provided and delayed referring him for an occupational therapist that might have supported his request for an extra bedroom.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions are correct. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.

Bedroom need

6. The Council’s review decision in October 2024 shows it considered the medical evidence he provided and its published allocations scheme. It explained that, although it did not dispute his medical condition or his need for specialist equipment overnight but the medical evidence did not support his request for an extra bedroom.
7. The Council has considered relevant information and explained the reasons for its decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to investigate further.

OT referral

8. We asked Mr X when he first requested an occupational therapist (OT) assessment, and he provided a letter from the Council dated 25 February 2025. This referred to a telephone conversation earlier that day and confirmed it would not make an OT referral because that would not assist with his request for an extra bedroom.
9. In April 2025, during the Council’s complaints process, Mr X referred to his earlier request for an OT assessment. At that stage, the Council said it had now requested an OT home visit.
10. An OT assessment would usually be needed where a person needs adaptations to their current property or needs to show the impact of their current property on their medical conditions. An OT assessment could be used to show a person cannot share a bedroom with others but that, on its own, would not necessarily mean the household needed an extra bedroom because the Council could say the current housing could be used differently. In these circumstances, it was not fault for the Council to refuse an OT referral initially, although I note it has since agreed this. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this further.

Priority band

11. Mr X provided further medical evidence, which the Council considered. It decided, in March 2025, the application did not meet the criteria for band A, which is for those with the most urgent need to move. It explained its reasons, with reference to its published allocations scheme. It said Mr X was not housebound and the impact of his current housing on his medical condition was not life-threatening. It also confirmed the medical evidence did now show it was a medical necessity for Mr X to have his own room. It explained Mr X could ask for a review of that decision within 21 days if he disagreed with it.
12. The decision shows the Council considered the medical evidence and its published scheme and explained its reasons for deciding band B was appropriate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify us investigating further. In any case, it was reasonable for Mr X to have used his review rights if he disagreed with the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman