Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority band the Council awarded on its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to award band B on its housing register. Ms X said the Council should have awarded band A, based on the medical evidence provided, and the failure to do so this means the family will remain in unsuitable housing for longer than they should.

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. Ms X, who has health issues, lives with her partner and children in a three bedroom property. The Council assessed the family as needing four bedrooms, taking into account the difficulty two of the children have sharing a room due to diagnoses of autism and ADHD.
6. Council records show it carried out a medical assessment in January 2025 and awarded band C medical. In March 2025, the Council considered fresh medical evidence, and awarded band B. In October 2025 Ms X asked the Council to award band A and provided further medical evidence.
7. In November 2025, the Council carried out a review. It decided band B was appropriate. Its decision letter set out the further evidence it had considered. It said that, whilst it recognised the family’s medical problems were aggravated by their current housing, these were not potentially life-threatening and so did not meet the threshold for band A.
8. Ms X provided a further GP support letter in February 2026, which the Council considered, but said band B remained appropriate.

My assessment

9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the decisions the Council took were correct. We consider the decision-making process. Unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
10. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations policy. This Council’s policy says it will award band A where the applicant has an urgent and potentially life-threatening need to move on medical grounds, where their health is directly and adversely affected by their current accommodation and where a move would see a clear improvement in their health. At appendix B it says band A is reserved for exceptional cases where an applicant’s life can in some way be said to be at risk because of associated medical and housing difficulties inherent in the existing accommodation. Band B us awarded where there are urgent but not life-threatening problems.
11. Council decisions show it considered the medical evidence provided and its allocation policy at each decision point. Decisions were made without undue delay and decision letters set out the reasons for the priority band awarded. Its decisions were in line with its published scheme. There is no indication from the medical evidence of a life-threatening situation to meet the criteria for band A.
12. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman