Summary: We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled the review of her housing band decision. The Council agreed a proportionate remedy and service improvements which removed the need for us to investigate.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider the medical information she provided in her housing application. Miss X wants the Council to review her housing banding decision.
2. Miss X also complains about delays, poor communication and complaint handling by the Council. Miss X says the Council have not responded to her Subject Access Request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complained the Council did not properly consider the medical information she filed for her housing application in August 2024.
9. The Council provided evidence it had sent Miss X’s medical questionnaire to its external medical review provider to review and used this information to decide Miss X’s housing band. The Council wrote to Miss X in September 2024 to tell her of its decision and of her right to ask for an internal review. However, this letter did not make it clear the Council had come to this decision itself; and the letter did not clearly explain the reasons for the Council’s decision.
10. In October 2025 the Council told Miss X that if she presented new medical information her housing band would be reviewed. Miss X filed new medical information in January 2026. The Council provided evidence it had sent Miss X’s medical evidence to its external medical review provider to review and used this information to decide Miss X’s housing band. The Council wrote to Miss X in April 2026 to tell her of its decision and of her right to ask for an internal review. However, once again this letter did not make it clear the Council had come to this decision itself; and the letter did not clearly explain the reasons for the Council’s decision.
11. Councils should make their own decisions about medical needs, taking into account all the evidence, and should not automatically accept the view of an independent medical adviser. Councils should address all the issues an applicant raises and provide sufficient evidence and reasoning for its decision. I do not consider the Council did this.
12. We asked the Council to review Miss X’s housing band decision in line with our good practice guidance. The Council has agreed and will review the decision and write to Miss X to fully explain its decision and apologise for not doing this previously. The Council has also agreed to ensure relevant staff read our good practice guidance to ensure they are making their own decisions and explaining the reasons for their decision in the decision letters.
13. Miss X complained to the Council when she struggled to contact the Housing Registration Team in 2025. The Council admitted there was a delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint and apologised for the poor communication and delays in responding. The Council offered Miss X a symbolic payment. I will not investigate the matter of delays, poor communication and complaint handling as the Council has already apologised and offered a symbolic payment.
14. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information. If Miss X wishes to pursue the issue about her Subject Access Request, it would be reasonable for her to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled the review of her housing band decision. The Council agreed a proportionate remedy and service improvements which removed the need for us to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman