Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to change his housing application banding from medical 2 priority to medical 1. He says that he has urgent need to be rehoused and that the Council’s independent medical assessors are wrong not to recognise his priority.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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. Mr X says he needs rehousing urgently and his mental health should make him eligible for medical priority band 1 on the housing register. At present he is in medical priority band 2. He has had seven medical assessments by the Council’s independent medical advisors up to December 2024 and the banding has remained unchanged.
6. Mr X made a formal complaint about the assessment and asked for it to be reviewed. The Council agreed to a final assessment by a Psychiatric Advisor not previously involved in his case. The assessment remained for band 2 priority because it was considered he does not meet the threshold for band 1 which is high.
7. 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 the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council is the body responsible for operating the housing register according to its allocation policy. It employs independent qualified assessors who decide on medical priority related to the applicant’s housing needs. Most council’s only approve cases for medical assessment once unless there is evidence of a change in medical circumstances. The Council has given Mr X many opportunities for a second opinion and this has not changed the view on his medical housing needs.
9. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman