Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. he says the Council ignored the evidence from an occupational therapist and the Council’s own medical assessors did not properly consider his medical needs. The Council’s review did not take his housing needs into account when reviewing his priority.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to the Council for housing and in September 2025 he was placed in Band 5 priority. He challenged the Council’s assessment because he says he has mobility needs due to his medical condition and he asked for a review of the decision.
6. The Council carried out a review of his case under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. The review concluded that his banding was correct but that his medical needs were yet to be determined by a medical assessment panel. The panel assessed his case in December 1995 and concluded that he did not meet the threshold for medical priority as his current home could be adapted to his needs. The decision letter offered him further rights of review of this decision.
7. Mr X complained to us and also submitted a new review request. Since he complained to us the Council has confirmed that Mr X’s review resulted in a Band 1 priority following submission of new information.
8. 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.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. We 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. In this case Mr X used the review procedure and the outcomes were based on the information available and the assessment of his housing needs.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman