Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Miss X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation into how the Council made its decisions on Miss X’s housing and medical priority. The Council offered a reasonable and proportionate remedy for the distress caused by its delay and poor communication.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council:

• Delayed in reassessing her housing priority.
• Failed to properly assess her housing and medical priority as it did not take account that she was at risk of domestic abuse and consider the medical needs of her children.

2. Miss X says that as a result she and her children and living in overcrowded accommodation with the risk of domestic abuse which is affecting their mental health.

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

4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council accepted Miss X’s application for the housing register. It placed her in band C as it had accepted the main housing duty. In early 2025 Miss X asked the Council to review her priority as she considered band C did not reflect the urgency of her need to move or her child’s medical issues. The Council requested a medical recommendation from its medical officer. The officer did not recommend medical priority. Some weeks later an officer told Ms X that her priority band remained unchanged. The Council did not issue a written decision.
8. Some months later Miss X contacted the Council to say she was waiting for the outcome of her banding review. She also submitted a further review request. The Council referred Miss X to its medical officer again. The Council did not respond to Miss X’s review request so she submitted a complaint.
9. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council addressed Miss X’s reasons for wanting increased priority in its complaint response. These included her concerns about domestic abuse and her child’s medical needs. It explained why it considered Miss X’s circumstances did not warrant medical priority and increased priority.
10. The Council also acknowledged that it had delayed in progressing Miss X’s application and its poor communication with her. It also acknowledged it failed to issue a written review decision in early 2025 or respond to some emails. The Council apologised to Miss X and offered a payment of £350.
11. We are not an appeal body so we do not come to our own view on whether medical or increased housing priority should be awarded. Our role is to consider if the Council followed the proper process when reaching its decision.
12. The Council considered Miss X’s reasons for requesting a review in its complaint responses. It also provided a clear and reasoned explanation for why Miss X’s circumstances did not warrant awarding medical and increased housing priority. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating how the Council reached its decision not to increase Miss X’s priority.
13. The Council did not issue a separate written decision on Miss X’s review request of early autumn 2025. But, as it has considered the review request, there is not enough injustice to Miss X to justify an investigation.
14. The Council’s apology and offer of £350 is a reasonable and proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Miss X by its delay, failure to issue a written decision in early 2025 and poor communication. The remedy is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation into how the Council considered Miss X’s medical and housing priority. The Council offered a reasonable and proportionate remedy for the distress caused by its delay and poor communication.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman