Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s allocations decision in 2023 because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We will not investigate the 2024 and 2025 decisions because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had wrongly refused to award medical priority on its housing register in 2023. Although it later agreed to award medical priority, it did not agree that her son and daughter-in-law could be included in her household and said they needed to make a separate application. Ms X said her son and daughter-in-law provide care for her and another family member.
2. Ms X said the Council’s failings mean initially she was not in the correct priority band and, that, when that was corrected, she still could not bid for a suitable alternative property because she was only allowed to bid for a two bedroomed property when her household comprises four adults and a child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Ms X asked for medical priority in April 2023. She said there were four adults and a child living in a two bedroom flat, which meant there was not enough space for medical equipment they needed. She said some of the adults had mobility issues, which meant using the external stairs to access their property was difficult. She also said the property had a bathroom with a toilet and explained the family needed two toilets because of their medical conditions, which meant they needed the toilet frequently during the day.
9. In May 2023, the Council decided the criteria for medical priority was not met. Although family members had severe long term illnesses or permanent and substantial disabilities, they could use a lift to access the property and they key problem was overcrowding, which does not attract medical priority.
10. This decision was upheld on review in September 2023. In her complaint, Ms X said the Council had not properly considered the fact that her son and daughter-in-law were carers for Ms X and another family member. The Council said it was not essential for them to live in the same property and they could make their own application.
11. In June 2024, Ms X provided evidence that her son and daughter-in-law were receiving carer’s allowance in relation to their caring responsibilities from February 2024 and asked the Council to reconsider its decision.
12. In July 2024, the Council awarded medical priority, but maintained the household needed two bedrooms. In January 2025, the Council agreed Ms X’s son and daughter-in-law should be included in her household and assessed her as needing four bedrooms. It awarded band 1 Group B Emergency priority and backdated this to July 2024 when medical priority was awarded.

My assessment

13. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. Ms X complained to us in December 2024 about the period from April 2023. I exercised discretion to consider the whole period because it was clear Ms X had been actively pursuing the matter throughout and any injustice caused by Council fault was ongoing at the time of the complaint.
14. We are not an appeal body. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
15. The Council considered the evidence Ms X provided in 2023. It agreed family members had significant medical conditions but decided the impact on their health was due to the overcrowding. Overcrowding attracts its own priority, and the Council was not satisfied at that stage that the son and daughter-in-law needed to live with Ms X to provide care. Although Ms X disagreed with that decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
16. In June 2024, Ms X provided evidence that her son and daughter-in-law were receiving carer’s allowance, which was evidence of significant caring responsibilities. On that basis, the Council awarded medical priority. On review, the Council agreed the son and daughter-in-law should be included in Ms X’s household. That decision was in line with the Council’s published allocations scheme. Although there was a delay in making that decision, this was remedied by backdating the priority date to July 2024 when medical priority was awarded. There is, therefore, nothing more we could achieve by further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the 2023 decisions because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making to justify this. We will not investigate the 2024 and 2025 decisions because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman