Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which has caused injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to award her any priority under its assessment of her housing application. She says it delayed carrying out her medical assessment and that she believes the decision not to award her any priority does not reflect her housing needs.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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. Ms X applied to the Council ‘s housing register and was informed that she did not qualify for a banding priority because she was adequately housed. She submitted medical evidence to support her application and the Council then asked its medical advisors to assess if she had any medical needs which may give her medical priority.
6. The assessment took 14 weeks which is longer than the 8 weeks specified in government guidance. The Council apologised for the delay but the outcome of the assessment was that she had no medical needs which would place her in one of the council’s priority bandings. The Council sent her its final assessment of her needs in October 2025. The assessment advised Ms X that she had a right to ask for a further review of the decision under s.166A of the housing Act 1996 within 21 days. Ms X did not request a further review and instead pursued a formal complaint.
7. The Stage 2 response of the complaint did not uphold her challenge to the decision and again reminded her that she could ask for a review. She did not submit a review and instead complained to us in December.
8. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. Ms X did not meet the threshold for a banding under the Council’s housing allocations scheme even after her medical assessment because she was considered to be adequately housed.
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.

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 any fault which has caused injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman