Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation and there is nothing more we could achieve for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to award his housing application higher medical priority when he asked for a review.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to increase his housing allocations banding to Band B. He says the Council did not properly consider medical evidence about the severity of his condition which means he is housebound.
6. In April 2025, Mr X submitted a medical change of circumstances to support his request for Band B. In May 2025, the Council decided that he should remain in Band C.
7. In May 2025, Mr X appealed against the decision. He said the Council had failed to apply the housing allocations policy correctly in relation to his medical needs.
8. In July 2025, the Council upheld its original decision. It said the medical evidence did not support Mr X’s application to move to a higher housing allocation band. Some of the medical evidence Mr X refers to was provided after that decision, so was not something the Council could have taken into account. Mr X later asked the Council to consider a change of circumstances, but based on what the Council had before it in its original and appeal decisions, I have seen no evidence of fault in how it considered Mr X’s circumstances or reached those decisions.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. The Council has since changed Mr X’s housing allocation band to B following a change of circumstances. There is therefore nothing more we could achieve for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation and there is nothing more we could achieve for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman