Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s initial decision to refuse to register and determine his review request. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s initial decision to refuse to register and determine his review request. He says this has left his child in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation. Mr X says whilst the Council has now carried out a review, it has failed to consider all the medical evidence.
2. Mr X wants the Council to carry out a new review, award appropriate priority and apologise.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X is a private tenant following recently being homeless. He provided the Council with new medical information about his child and asked for his application to be reassessed. The Council considered this information through a health and wellbeing assessment. It decided the evidence did not show Mr X qualified for medical priority, but recommended that his household needed a three-bedroom, ground-floor property.
7. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision in February 2026. The Council initially declined to do so because it said it had not made a reviewable decision. Mr X disputed this and complained to the Council. After Mr X chased the Council for responses, it issued its review decision in May 2026.
8. The Council explained its housing policy does not allow applicants who receive points because they are homeless to also receive health and wellbeing points. It said it therefore considered Mr X’s medical evidence to identify any housing recommendations, rather than to award additional priority. The Council completed a further health and wellbeing assessment in April 2026, which reached the same outcome.
9. We are unlikely to find fault with a council’s decision about an applicant’s housing priority where it has assessed the application in line with its published allocations scheme. I have seen no evidence the Council failed to properly consider Mr X’s application or the medical evidence he provided. The Council’s policy awards points under different reasonable preference categories and does not allow applicants to receive duplicate points across categories. This means an applicant awarded points because they are homeless does not also qualify for additional health and wellbeing points.
10. I understand Mr X considers the Council misapplied its policy by not awarding points under the medical criteria. However, the policy allows a medical assessment officer to recommend the type of accommodation that would be suitable for an applicant’s household. The Council did this by recommending a three-bedroom, ground-floor property. This does not mean Mr X is entitled to additional health and wellbeing points under the allocations scheme.
11. Mr X says the Council failed to apply its policy because it confirmed his case had not been considered by a panel. However, as its allocations scheme does not allow applicants to receive duplicate points, the Council was not required to refer his case to a panel. The Council told Mr X he could seek a panel referral by making a fresh application, but this would result in the loss of his existing homelessness points. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision.
12. There was some delay in the Council considering Mr X’s review request. However, I do not consider this caused Mr X a significant enough injustice to justify further investigation. We will also not investigate the Council’s complaint handling separately. This is because it would not be a proportionate use of public resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman