Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse Ms X’s application for medical priority and eligibility for an extra bedroom. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council wrongly refused her application for medical priority and to be eligible for a two bedroom property despite her landlord agreeing to her application. Ms X also considers the Council did not properly consider her request for a review of its decision. Ms X says that as a result her mental health has deteriorated as she cannot move to a two bedroom property which would allow family to stay overnight to provide support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X has been on the Council’s housing register for a number of years. The Council awarded priority band 1B as she was at risk of domestic abuse. Ms X was eligible to bid on one bedroom properties. In 2025, Ms X applied for medical priority. She also asked to be eligible to bid on two bedroom properties as she required family to stay overnight to look after her at times.
7. The Council assessed Ms X’s application and decided not to award medical priority or eligibility for an extra bedroom. The Council wrote to Ms X setting out the evidence it had considered. It explained that the available information did not show that Ms X’s property was causing a sustained deterioration in her mental health. So, it would not award medical priority. The Council also explained it did not consider there was evidence to show Ms X had a permanent need for 24 hour care. It considered overnight visitors could be accommodated within her existing living space. So, the Council refused Ms X’s request for two bedroom need.
8. We are not a right of appeal so we will not come to our own view on whether the Council should grant medical priority or eligibility for an additional bedroom. Our role is to consider whether the Council has followed the proper processes when reaching its decision.
9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s medical assessment. The Council’s decision letter shows it considered the relevant information when reaching its decision. Its decision letter gives a reasoned explanation for why it considered it should not award medical priority and two bedroom need. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
10. Ms X’s landlord granted medical priority and two bedroom need to Ms X. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council said the landlord had granted the priority and bedroom need in error which it had withdrawn. The Council is responsible for deciding who had medical priority on the housing register and bedroom need. So, the fact Ms X’s landlord granted medical priority and an additional bedroom is not evidence of fault in how the Council carried out its medical assessment.
11. Ms X requested a review of the Council’s decision not to award medical priority and eligibility for a two bedroom property. In doing so, Ms X explained why she disagreed with the decisions. Ms X submitted further information including a letter from her GP which set out why she considered she needed an additional bedroom.
12. The Council considered Ms X’s request for a review. It wrote to Ms X and explained that the threshold for medical priority was not met and an extra bedroom was not medically necessary.
13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council considered her appeal. Ms X’s review request, including the GP’s letter, did not provide any significant new information or evidence from that considered in the medical assessment. It is therefore unlikely that any fault in how the Council considered Ms X’s review request would have affected the outcome. So, there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation into how the Council considered Ms X’s review request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman