Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to review his housing allocation banding after he submitted medical evidence. The Council has now carried out an assessment of the medical evidence, but it did not result in the family moving to a higher priority band as they already had higher priority due to overcrowding. The difficult living conditions experienced by the family are not as a result of any fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to review his housing allocation banding after he submitted medical evidence.
2. Mr X’s family of seven are living in a two-bedroom property which is causing significant difficulties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr 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

7. 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))
8. 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.
9. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Back to top

Key facts

10. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
11. Mr X is currently living in a two-bedroom property and this is putting strain on his family of seven. He requires a move to larger property. Mr X has a live application on the Council’s housing register. He is currently in Band 9 on the grounds of being statutorily overcrowded and having medical needs. He is assessed as requiring a four-bedroom property and he has a priority date of August 2022.
12. Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the Council in June 2025. He said that a recent email from the Council stated that changes to the allocation policy meant that overcrowded households with long term links to the borough could bid for properties below their assessed need but that he was still only able to bid on four-bedroom properties. He said he had submitted medical evidence, but this had not changed his priority band. He asked the Council to review his banding and allow him to bid below his assessed need. He also asked the Council to consider using its discretion to make a direct offer due to the impact the current housing situation was having on his family.
13. The Council responded on 17 July stating that his family had been given band 9 priority which was the highest priority that can be awarded for overcrowding. It said the medical evidence he had uploaded was not recent as it was dated 2020 and 2022 and so no medical review had been carried out. The Council wrongly referred to his family of five, they are in fact a family of seven. However, it said the family was entitled to bid on three-bedroom properties able to accommodate seven or more people. It said that most three-bedroom properties were capped at a capacity of six people and so this may explain why he was not seeing many eligible listings.
14. Mr X contacted the Council again on 23 July. He pointed out the error in the stage one response regarding the size of his family. Mr X set out the challenges facing his family in respect of physical and mental health issues and the impact of living in a two-bedroom flat. He asked the Council to look properly at his application.
15. The Council provided a stage two response on 20 August. It apologised for the error in the previous response referring to a family of five. It explained that the documents uploaded had previously been reviewed by its medical advisor in 2022. However, it agreed to refer the documents again to its independent medical advisor. It confirmed that Mr X could place bids on four-bedroom properties.
16. The Council wrote to Mr X on 2 October after reviewing the medical information submitted. This confirmed that medical priority of Band 11 was awarded. However, as the family is already in Band 9 due to overcrowding the reconsideration of the medical information did not result in changes to their priority.

Analysis

17. The demand for social housing far outweighs the supply in many areas. This can mean that for many families the waiting time for suitable alternative housing can be many years. Mr X and his family of seven are currently living in a two-bedroom property. The detrimental impact of this on all family members is significant. It is therefore understandable that Mr X wants to ensure that his application has been correctly assessed and the correct banding and priority date has been given.
18. The Council changed its allocation system and the banding categories in 2025. Mr X went from being in Band A to Band 9. However, based on the information I have seen there is nothing to suggest this is incorrect. Band 9 reflects his overcrowding status and that he has been in the borough for over 10 years. I have not seen any evidence which would suggest Mr X should be in a higher band.
19. Mr X uploaded medical evidence in April 2025 and then complained the Council failed to assess it. After making a complaint about this, the Council explained that the evidence was dated several years earlier and was not new information. However, it did agree to send it to the independent medical assessor who then considered it. This resulted in the Council awarding Band 11 medical priority. As medical priority was awarded, the failure to consider it when originally uploaded was fault. However, even though medical priority was awarded, the family was already in a higher priority band and so I am not persuaded the failure to assess the medical information immediately resulted in an injustice significant enough to warrant further action by the Ombudsman.
20. In his complaint, Mr X also asked about a change in policy in which the Council indicated that overcrowded families could bid on properties below their assessed need. Mr X explained the system only allowed him to bid on four bed properties. In its response the Council said Mr X was only able to place bids on three-bedroom properties that could accommodate seven people. It said most three-bedroom properties have a maximum limit of six people and therefore he would not be able to bid on such properties. It said this may explain why he was not seeing any eligible three-bedroom properties to bid on. This seems to me to be in accordance with the Council’s allocation policy which states that it only allows bids below the assessed need where it does not result in the family being statutorily overcrowded.
21. While I can understand Mr X’s frustration regarding his living situation, I am not persuaded this is as a result of fault by the Council. The information provided indicates the Council has now assessed all the information provided by Mr X and that he is in the correct priority band.

Back to top

Decision

22. There is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman