Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly consider her family’s circumstances or the evidence provided when assessing her priority on the housing register. We found there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council determined Miss X’s priority on the housing register. It took account of the relevant evidence and followed the appropriate procedure.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly consider her family’s circumstances or the evidence provided when assessing her priority on the housing register. Miss X complained the Council has wrongly awarded Band C medical priority when her family’s circumstance merit a higher priority.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. This enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band A and those with the lowest priority Band C.
8. The Council’s scheme awards Band A priority to applicants who need to move because they have been assessed as having a serious medical or welfare need. It awards Band B priority to those assessed to have a serious medical or welfare need to move and Band C to those assessed as having a moderate medical or welfare need.
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

What happened here

10. Miss X lives in a two bedroom property with her four children. She applied to join the housing register in 2021 and was placed in Band C. Miss X has provided additional documentation and asked the Council to review her priority several times since then. In 2025 Miss X provided further evidence for her own and two of her children’s medical conditions and again asked the Council to review her banding.
11. Miss X told the Council she had difficulty going up and down the stairs in the property. She used the living room as a bedroom for herself and her three younger children. And told the Council the corridors were too narrow to utilise a walker or wheelchair.
12. The Council reviewed Miss X’s circumstances and evidence and responded on 25 April 2025. The Council told Miss X it had referred her medical evidence to its Independent Medical Advisor for an assessment. The Council concluded Miss X did not meet the criteria for a medical priority. It said the initial placement of Band C on the basis the household was overcrowded by one bedroom still applied.
13. Miss X disagreed with the decision and requested a review. She also provided an updated Occupational Health (OT) report dated May 2025. The Council responded on 25 July 2025. It had again referred the additional medical evidence to its Independent Medical Advisor for an assessment. The advisor considered moderate medial priority applied and made recommendations for the type of property that would be suitable. The Council confirmed Miss X had Band C priority for moderate medical needs.
14. On 2 August 2025 Miss X made a formal complaint about the way her case had been handled and asked for a review of the decision of 25 July 2025. Miss X said she had had to repeatedly correct serious errors on her file and was concerned the mistakes were affecting their chances of being fairly assessed and appropriately housed.
15. Miss X asserted the assessment did not fully reflect the severity of their living conditions or her family’s medical needs. She argued the Council had not properly taken into account the serious medical needs of one of her children who is non-ambulant and relies on a wheelchair. She said their accommodation with internal stairs, narrow corridors and a small inaccessible bathroom was not suitable for their needs. Miss X also noted the assessment failed to consider two members of her family and misspelt one of her children’s names.
16. The Council reviewed the decision of 25 July 2025 and responded to Miss X on 6 October 2025. The Council apologised for the delay in completing the review. It was satisfied Miss X should be placed in Band C with medical priority and upheld the decision of 25 July 2025. The Council accepted there was a medical need for accessible accommodation. However it did not consider the impact on the medical conditions met the threshold for higher medical priority.
17. The Council told Miss X it had made further enquiries of the OT team who had confirmed that while the current bathroom did not have a lot of space, a bath lift could be trialled. The OT also recognised that as Miss X’s child grew bigger their needs would change. The Council suggested Miss X contact the OT team if she felt her child’s needs had changed since the report of November 2024. The Council was satisfied there were potential solutions that could be trialled with the OT.
18. It also noted that while one of Miss X’s children was now a permanent wheelchair user, there were no concerns raised about getting the wheelchair and walker into the property.
19. Miss X remained dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns.
20. Since contacting us Miss X has received an updated OT housing report dated January 2026 which she submitted to the Council on 9 January 2026. Miss X asked for a reassessment of their housing need. The Council responded on 26 May 2026. It was again satisfied that Miss X had been awarded a moderate medical priority Band C based on their medical needs. Miss X has requested a review of this decision.
21. The Council’s decision in May 2026 and Miss X’s subsequent review request are not part of this investigation.

Analysis

22. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what priority a housing applicant should be awarded; that is the Council’s job. We can only consider whether the Council assessed her application correctly. We cannot criticise a council where officers have followed the correct procedures and reached a reasoned decision.
23. The Council considered the evidence Miss X provided and sought medical advice about her application. It accepted the family had a medical need to move but did not consider this need was sufficient to meet the criteria for Band A or Band B under its policy. Miss X disagrees with this decision but I am satisfied the Council took account of the relevant evidence and followed the appropriate procedure. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
24. The Council took just over 10 weeks to respond to Miss X’s review request of July 2025. The Council’s housing allocation policy says it will respond to review requests within 56 days. This means the Council should have completed the review by 19 September 2025, but it did not respond until 6 October 2025. The Council apologised to Miss X for this delay. This is an appropriate response. The delay did not affect the outcome of the review.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman