Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing application and the medical assessment. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to have requested a review of the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing application and the medical assessment. She said she experienced repeated delays and procedural failures and the Council failed to properly assess and consider medical and professional evidence causing a significant decline in her mental and physical health and prolonged uncertainty.

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
• 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. Miss X applied for medical priority in March 2025.
6. The evidence suggests that the Council sent Miss X’s health form and medical evidence to its independent medical advisor in May 2025, together with her occupational therapy assessment.
7. On 10 July 2025, the Council issued a decision letter, deciding that Miss X did not qualify to be granted a branding award based on her medical needs.
8. The Council’s decision letter highlighted that Miss X had the right to request a review of the Council’s decision within 21 days. There is no evidence that she requested this. We cannot investigate this complaint as it fell outside the scope of the Council’s complaints process, as there was a means of challenging its decision and Miss X could have followed the non-statutory s.166A review process.
9. We note that the Council acknowledged and apologised for its delay in addressing Miss X’s initial concerns which we consider proportionate.
10. In relation to the Council’s decision that Miss X did not qualify for medical priority, we are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. 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. The evidence suggests that the Council considered the information held on Miss X’s housing file, including all the medical evidence she provided about her medical conditions, circumstances, and its Allocations Policy when making its decision. There was no undue delay in making it decisions and it explained its reasons at review.
12. Miss X asked the Council for a further s.166A review under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6 provisions. The Council decided the review in September 2025 and concluded that she did not meet the threshold for a banding priority and that the medical assessment of her needs was not sufficient for medical priority.
13. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of Miss X’s housing application and the medical assessment. It was reasonable to expect Miss X to have requested a review of the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman