Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council:
• failed to consider medical evidence about her child properly, which has led to the backdating of her priority banding decision being incorrectly dated by approximately three months;
• wrongly rejected her argument that her existing property is unsuitable, despite her concerns about the safety of medical deliveries for her child being made to a communal entrance; and
• delayed in its decision on a medical needs reassessment for approximately six months.
2. Miss Y says the issue is causing a significant risk to her child’s health, upset and worry to her family as well as time and trouble in making the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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 Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

The council failed to consider medical evidence about her child properly, which has led to the backdating of her priority banding decision being incorrectly dated by approximately three months

6. Miss Y provided information to the Council about her change of circumstances in March 2025. She says she included medical information relating to two of her children. She then provided further information to the Council between April and August 2025.
7. The Council says the information provided in March 2025, while it identified her son’s medical condition, did not show how this was relevant to the households current or future housing needs. It says it was not until June 2025 that information was provided which demonstrated the impact Miss Y’s son’s health had on his housing needs. Consequently, when the Council completed the reassessment of the family’s housing priority and banding, it backdated its decision to place Miss Y in Band A (the highest band) to the date when Miss Y provided the information which placed her family in the criteria for this banding.
8. The Council’s housing allocations policy sets out how it will make decisions for housing, including banding and priority. The Council’s policy specifically says it will make offers of housing in order from the date of entry into the band.
9. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. The Council has explained its rationale for the change in its decision on Miss Y’s banding and priority. It has explained that it was the information Miss Y provided in June 2025, which altered its decision as it explained more fully how Miss Y’s housing needs were impacted by her son’s condition. As it is the impact on the housing need that alters the banding decision, rather than the diagnosis of a medical condition, the Council changed its banding decision based on relevant information at this point and we would not find fault in this.
10. As Miss Y would not have been placed into this banding without this further information, it is from this point that her application would have entered this banding. Consequently, the backdating, which will be discussed further below, has been put back to the date of entry, in line with the Council’s policy. As there is not enough evidence of fault in the backdating of the decision or in the change of the decision, we will not investigate.

The Council wrongly rejected her argument that her existing property is unsuitable, despite her concerns about the safety of medical deliveries for her child being made to a communal entrance

11. Miss Y says the property she is currently living in is unsuitable for her family’s housing needs, because medical supplied must be delivered to a communal entrance. She says if she is not there to take the delivery, she risks the medical supplies being tampered with, potentially contaminating it or stolen, putting her child’s health at serious risk.
12. The Council placed Miss Y and her family in Band A, the highest band and priority status due to her childrens’ medical needs and their impact on their housing needs. Given this banding and priority level, even if Miss Y’s argument about the suitability of the existing property had been accepted, she would not have been placed into a higher level of banding.
13. Consequently, as she is already in the highest banding available, further investigation into this complaint would not lead to a different outcome to the situation Miss Y is in already regarding her banding and priority. We will not investigate.

The Council delayed in its decision on a medical need reassessment for approximately six months.

14. The Council’s complaint response has admitted fault in a delay in the reassessment of Miss Y’s family’s medical needs. The Council has apologised for this, agreed to put more staff in place to reduce the likely recurrence of the issue and has backdated Miss Y’s banding date to June 2025. While the delay would have been inconvenient, as the Council has already backdated the application’s banding date, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman