Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision regarding Mr X’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the matters within our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not awarded the correct banding to reflect his family’s medical needs. He says this has negatively affected his mental health and left his family in an unsuitable property.
2. He also complains about disrepair in his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In 2020, the Council awarded Mr X band 3 to bid on four-bedroom properties.
9. In 2025, Mr X asked the Council to consider if his household had any additional medical priority. No recent medical evidence was submitted as part of this request; however a medical assessment was carried out in which Mr X explained how overcrowding was affecting his household. The Council decided not to award Mr X a medical priority.
10. Mr X says the Council awarded him the incorrect medical priority, leaving his family in overcrowded accommodation. The Council explained overcrowding is awarded as a separate priority from medical need. Any decision about a housing application is challengeable by seeking a review from the Council. Mr X did not seek a review of the decision.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with it.
12. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s processes here to warrant an investigation. The Council considered the relevant evidence and explained overcrowding is considered separately. It is open for Mr X to request a banding review and submit any further medical evidence for the Council to consider.
13. We cannot consider Mr X’s reports of property disrepair. Mr X is a tenant of the Council. So, as paragraph 5 explains, the law says we cannot investigate. I understand Mr X has contacted the Housing Ombudsman about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and the law restricts us from investigating some of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman