Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to award him and his family a higher priority banding and failed to consider their medical needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council discriminated against his family, especially his children who have autism, by refusing to award higher medical priority. He complains the Council gave dangerous advice about how the family should manage their day-to-day housing problems. Mr X says the Council should award the family an extra bedroom need with a garden, so his children can play safely, and a toilet with a sink on each floor.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s 2024 Housing Allocations Scheme (as published online).

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is on the Council’s housing register. He currently lives in a two-bedroom property with his wife and two children.
7. In June 2025, Mr X requested the Council increase his family’s priority banding and bedroom entitlement. At the time, the Council had awarded Mr X’s application Category C priority (for medical and welfare needs) with a combined points of 80, as well as a two-bedroom need.
8. In July, the Council completed a review of Mr X’s banding priority. A new medical assessment was completed, which considered almost 80 pages of new evidence, but recommended Mr X’s banding priority and bedroom need should stay the same.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s decision, and I am satisfied it properly considered all the evidence provided by Mr X in relation to his and his children’s medical conditions. It thoroughly considered the impact their current property had on their medical conditions and welfare. But it decided Category C was the highest possible priority banding that it could award. It has not denied Mr X priority under its Scheme, but explained why it cannot award higher priority points. The Council also considered the medical needs of Mr X’s children and evidence available, but decided this did not show it was essential for them to have separate bedrooms. The Council’s decision regarding the points to award and bedroom need are also in line with its Housing Allocations Scheme. We cannot find fault with a decision if it has been made properly and in line with the published policy. For these reasons, we will not investigate as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
10. The toilet facilities in Mr X’s property lack a sink. Mr X disagrees with the suitability of the alternative options recommended by the Council’s medical advisor (such as washing hands in the kitchen sink or giving the youngest child access to a potty in the upstairs bathroom where there is a sink). This advice was given after considering the family’s circumstances and an occupational therapist’s report, which confirmed it was not possible to install a sink in the downstairs toilet or, alternatively, a toilet in the upstairs bathroom. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council refused to award him and his family a higher priority banding and failed to consider their medical needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman