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. Ms X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. She says that she was awarded band D which is low-priority and after a medical assessment and a Part 6 housing review her priority banding was unchanged by the Council. She believes she should be awarded higher 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. Ms X applied to the Council for housing in late 2024. She was awarded Band D priority which is a low banding and does not allow an applicant to bid on the choice-based lettings system. She asked the Council to carry out a medical assessment and provided information to support her request.
6. The Council sent her request to an independent medical advisor. The assessment stated that she did not require additional priority because her medical needs were addressed by her current housing which is on the ground floor. The recommendation was the same priority for 1-bedroom accommodation with maximum first floor or with a lift for higher floor levels. The medical review took approximately 10 weeks. There is no statutory timescale for medical reviews but the Council accepted it should not have taken as long.
7. Ms X asked for a review of the banding decision which is under s.166A of the housing Act 1996 Part 6. She requested the review on 2 June and submitted additional medical evidence on 19 June. The Council concluded the review and replied to her on 25 June which is well within the guidance period of 8 weeks for non-statutory reviews. The outcome of the review was unchanged and she remained on Band D.
8. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council and it did not issue a Stage 2 response before she complained to us in November 2025. The Council subsequently awarded her £250 for the delay in handling her complaint. This is a reasonable remedy for the limited injustice involved.
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.
10. The Ombudsman cannot usually overturn a council’s decision on the priority given to an application or its decision that someone is ineligible for housing allocation. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or 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.
11. In this case there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of the application. the initial medical assessment took longer than 8 weeks but the outcome was unchanged so no significant injustice was caused as a result. The s.166A review was completed well within the guidance for these reviews.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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