Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not properly consider her households medical conditions when awarding low priority on health grounds. This means Ms X is not able to bid for social housing through the Council’s housing register.

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.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council assessed Ms X’s health and wellbeing in March 2025. It awarded low medical priority – 50 points. It said applicants needed at least 100 points to join its active housing register.
6. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision on 7 April. Its allocations scheme says it will review decisions within 56 days. It issued a review decision on 26 September 2025. It upheld the award of 50 points and explained its reasons. It noted Ms X was in private rented accommodation and was short of one bedroom, but this did not attract any points under its published allocation scheme. It considered the medical evidence provided and explained why low medical priority was appropriate. It confirmed Ms X would not be able to actively bid through its housing register because she had less than 100 points.

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We consider its decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
8. The Council considered the medical evidence Ms X provided and its published allocations scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding an award of low medical priority was appropriate. It also explained that being short of one bedroom did not attract any additional points. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.
9. I note there was a delay in carrying out the review. However, the outcome was unchanged, so the delay did not cause sufficient injustice to Ms X to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman