Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to increase Ms X’s medical points on the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council:

• Failed to properly consider the impact of her medical conditions.
• Failed to provide reasons for the Council’s medical advisor’s recommendation on her medical priority.

2. Ms X says that, as a result, she cannot move from her property which she can no longer manage due to her medical conditions. Ms X also says the Council’s actions have caused significant distress to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X is on the Council’s housing register with 25 medical points. In 2025 she asked the Council to increase her medical points due to impact of her medical conditions. The Council refused to increase Ms X's medical points as it considered her medical conditions had a minor relevance to her housing needs.
8. Ms X requested a review of this decision. In her request, she said the Council did not provide any explanation for its medical advisor’s recommendation that her points should remain at 25. Ms X explained that she considered her medical conditions had a moderate relevance to her housing needs so her points should be increased.
9. The Council considered Mrs X’s review request. It decided Ms X’s medical points should remain at 25 points.
10. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on what housing priority or medical points should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council followed the proper process when reaching its decision.
11. The Council’s review decision letter shows it considered the points raised by Ms X in her appeal and the evidence she provided, including the occupational therapy assessment. The Council provided a reasoned explanation for why it considered Ms X’s medical points should remain at 25.
12. Ms X considers the Council’s medical advisor should have provided a reason for their recommendation that her points remain at 25 and the Council could not provide a copy of the recommendation. It is the Council’s responsibility to decide what priority should be awarded to housing applicants, not the medical advisor. The Council fully explained its reasons for why it did not consider Ms X’s points should be increased. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman