Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council considered her medical evidence when deciding not to award her additional priority on its allocations scheme, causing upset. We do not find fault with the Council’s decision-making process. The Council was at fault for not alerting Miss X to her right to review but find it has already acted to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council considered her medical evidence and decided not to award her priority Band 2 in its housing allocations scheme, causing upset.

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. 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)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated Miss X’s complaint as set out above between when she submitted medical evidence to the Council in March 2025 and when the Council responded to our enquiries in March 2026. Any mention below to events that took place outside of these times is for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

8. 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))
9. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. The Council must notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council’s scheme places applicants into one of four priority bands, with Band 1 being the highest priority. The Council’s allocations scheme defines the criteria for each band. Band 2 includes people who need to move for medical, disability or welfare reasons. Band 4 includes applicants who do not qualify for additional priority.
11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

What happened

12. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
13. Miss X is on the Council’s housing register and was placed in Band 4.
14. In March 2025 Miss X submitted medical evidence for the Council’s consideration. This included a letter from a sleep psychologist confirming treatment Miss X was receiving, a letter from a clinician confirming treatment for knee pain, and a record of past medical diagnoses. This evidence did not specifically refer to Miss X’s current property and whether this was having an impact on her medical conditions.
15. The Council acknowledged the information Miss X had provided and explained this had been passed to its medical team to assess.
16. The Council’s medical officer assessed Miss X’s evidence and concluded this did not indicate her current accommodation was causing significant ill health and so there was no additional priority available to her.
17. The Council wrote to Miss X in June 2025 to confirm it had now reviewed the information she had submitted. The Council explained for medical priority to be awarded the assessment would need to show Miss X’s current home was impacting her wellbeing and rehousing would significantly resolve or alleviate these problems. The Council explained the evidence Miss X submitted did not show this and so it could not award medical priority at that time. This letter did not set out Miss X’s right to request a review of the decision the Council had made.
18. Miss X told the Council she disagreed with its decision, and it explained she could submit a complaint if she was unhappy.
19. Miss X complained to the Council explaining she believed she should be awarded a priority Band 2 and the Council had failed to properly consider her medical evidence.
20. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint explaining its medical officer had considered all the supporting evidence she had provided but determined there was no reason to award medical priority. The Council said the medical officer acknowledged the medical conditions Miss X had outlined but said the evidence did not demonstrate that her current accommodation was having a significant or direct impact on her health. The Council said if Miss X could provide evidence to show a clear link between her health and her housing situation, she could request a reassessment.
21. Miss X asked the Council to reconsider her complaint as she felt she had been treated wrongly and should be considered for a priority award because of knee issues.
22. The Council reviewed all the evidence it held and wrote to Miss X to explain it felt her medical evidence had been properly considered and it had reached the right conclusions previously.
23. In January 2026 the Council visited Miss X’s home with an occupational therapist (OT). The OT said they could see no evidence Miss X’s current property was causing a significant impact on her health. The Council then wrote to Miss X to confirm it had reviewed all the medical evidence she had provided but could not establish a connection between her medical condition and her current home. As a result, the Council explained it could not award medical priority.
24. In response to our enquiries, the Council has explained it will ensure that going forward decision letters will include a paragraph to explain applicants have the right to request a review.

Analysis

25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means our role is not to consider whether a housing applicant should be awarded a specific priority banding. Rather, we consider whether the Council decided on the application properly, having regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant.
26. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with it.
27. The Council’s allocations policy clearly sets out the criteria for each band. To be awarded Band 2 with medical priority, evidence needs to demonstrate not only the presence of a medical condition but that there is a clear link between the applicants housing and that condition that could be alleviated by a move to a different property.
28. The Council’s medical officer considered all the evidence Miss X provided but concluded there was no clear link between her medical condition and her current property. The Council then wrote to Miss X to confirm it had decided she was not eligible for a priority award and its reasoning for this. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed to reach this decision.
29. As Miss X disagreed with the Council’s decision, the Council reviewed the decision it had come to and wrote to Miss X to explain why its view had not changed. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed here.
30. The Council also arranged for an OT to complete a home visit. The advice of the OT was that there was no evidence Miss X’s current property was causing a significant impact on her health. As a result, the Council maintained its decision that Miss X was not eligible for a medical priority award. I appreciate Miss X disagrees with this decision, but I have seen no evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to reach it so I cannot criticise the decision it came to.
31. The Housing Act 1996 is clear that Councils should notify applicants of their right to request a review of decisions on their housing priority. When the Council wrote to Miss X in June 2025, it did not notify her of the right to request a review which amounts to fault. However, Miss X used the Council’s complaints procedure to secure a review, so I find the personal injustice to her to be minimal. The Council has also explained it has now acted to ensure its decision letters include information about review rights, and I find that to be suitable action to address the injustice going forward.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find no fault with the process the Council followed to consider whether to award Miss X medical priority on its housing register. I find the Council at fault for not explaining Miss X had the right to review its decision, but I find it has taken suitable action to address the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman