Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the priority band the Council awarded on its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. The Council accepted it delayed carrying out a review of Mr X’s priority band, for which it has apologised. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review of a housing register banding decision. He later complained the Council failed to properly apply its allocations policy when carrying out the review and failed to give adequate reasons to justify the banding awarded.
2. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused significant distress and meant he was at risk of harm. He said his health deteriorated as a result of the delays, which meant he had to pay for extra care costs.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

The review decision

7. Mr X sought medical priority on mental health grounds, including that the threat of eviction from his current property was aggravating his mental health.
8. Mr X made a previous complaint to us about a review decision made in March 2025. To resolve that complaint, the Council agreed to consider whether a medical letter dated 7 March 2025, which was received shortly after its review decision, would change Mr X’s banding. The Council carried out that review in September 2025. It decided the new medical letter did not introduce any new facts nor demonstrate a change of circumstances not already considered when making the March 2025 review decision.
9. In May 2025, the Council’s updated allocations policy came into effect and in June the Council re-registered Mr X’s application. It awarded band C medical “with adverse circumstances”. Mr X was unhappy with the banding awarded and asked for a review. The Council issued its review decision in November 2025.
10. In its decision letter, the Council confirmed it had considered all the information provided, including the medical letter dated 7 March 2025, and referred to its updated allocations scheme. It said it was satisfied that no new information had been presented that had not already been considered during the March 2025 review. It therefore upheld the band C medical award. The Council acknowledged that securing a social tenancy could help to alleviate the impact on Mr X’s health by removing any ongoing uncertainty in relation to his current housing. It also acknowledged Mr X had a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 but considered that did not materially affect the banding award as a medical priority had been awarded.
11. Mr X complained the Council did not adequately explain its reasons because it failed to:
• refer to his specific diagnosis, nor the medical letter dated 7 March 2025, which he argued could not have been considered when carrying out a review in March 2025 because it was not provided until after that review decision was issued;
• did not explain why his diagnosis did not amount to a deterioration of his mental health;
• refer to his adult social care records, which were relevant to consider whether his health had deteriorated since the earlier review decision; and
• had not properly considered how his current housing affected his mental health.
12. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to consider whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocation scheme.
13. Council records show it has considered all relevant evidence and its allocations policy at each decision point. There was a delay in carrying out the review after Mr X requested it in June 2025, which will be considered below. The Council explained its reasons for concluding band C medical was appropriate, including that the medical letter dated 7 March 2025 did not demonstrate a material change in its decision letter in September 2025.
14. The fact Mr X now has a diagnosis does not, by itself, indicate his mental health has deteriorated since the last medical assessment, although he does now have a label for his condition. There is also no indication that rehousing is needed to support the delivery of a statutory service in the Council’s area. It is clear the Council has considered the impact of Mr X’s current housing insecurity on his mental health and that it has awarded band C medical priority to reflect that.
15. Although I recognise Mr X would prefer to have more detailed reasons for the Council’s banding decision, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.

Delay in carrying out the review

16. The Council awarded band C medical in June 2025. On 20 June, Mr X asked for a review of the decision.
17. The Council acknowledged his review request on 2 July. It told him it was prioritising the re-registration of housing register applications following a significant update to its housing allocations policy in May 2025. It said it would not be considering review requests until that process had been completed.
18. On 16 September, the Council told Mr X the re-registration process was now complete and it expected to issue a review decision within a further 56 days, which was 10 November 2025. It issued its review decision on 6 November. This upheld the original banding award.
19. The Council apologised for the delay in carrying out the review. It explained this was due to wide-ranging changes to its allocations process, which meant all applicants had to be re-registered. This had also led to a higher volume of review requests than usual.
20. The Council has acknowledged it failed to carry out the review within 56 days. It explained the reasons for this and apologised. If, on review, it had increased the priority band awarded, I would have expected it to backdate that award to remedy the delay. In this case, there was no change to the priority band awarded. Whilst I acknowledge the impact of the delay on Mr X, who has medical needs, I consider the Council’s apology was sufficient to remedy the injustice caused. Further investigation would not, therefore, lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the priority band awarded because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate his complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out a review because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman