Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority band the Council awarded on its housing register. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. In any case, the Council has since awarded band A priority.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to award band A priority on its housing register, which she considers she is entitled to. She says that, as a result of the Council’s failings, she will be living in severely overcrowded housing with her children for longer than she should.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council reviewed Ms X’s housing register application after her third child was born. It placed her in band B, effective from 1 December 2023, due to severe overcrowding and said she needed three bedrooms.
6. Ms X asked for additional priority, based on her son’s medical conditions. Between July and October 2024, the Council carried out four medical assessments in response to Ms X providing further evidence, and decided:
• she met the criteria for band C medical priority, but this did not change her overall priority as she was already in band B; and
• her son needed his own room, but this had already been taken into account when deciding the household needed three bedrooms.
7. Ms X asked for a review of the Council’s decision in October 2024. It is unclear whether a formal review was carried out, but the Council did consider her priority banding in its complaint response on 25 October 2024. It said that, to consider any additional priority, it would need to see an assessment of her son’s medical needs by an occupational therapist.
8. From August 2024, the Council also considered whether she was eligible for an enhanced banding award due to her having ten year’s continuous residence in its Borough. Initially, it said she did not qualify because there was a gap in her address history. After receiving further evidence, the Council awarded enhanced priority on 4 December 2024, which means she is now in band A. The effective date for her application remains 1 December 2023.

My assessment

9. The Council considered the evidence Ms X provided at various points in 2024. It consulted its medical adviser and issued decisions explaining its reasons for deciding that she needed three bedrooms, and that band B priority was appropriate. There was no undue delay in making those decisions and, on each occasion, it explained she could ask for a review of the decision. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council considered whether Ms X was eligible for medical priority to justify further investigation.
10. Alongside considering whether she was eligible for additional priority due to her son’s medical needs, the Council also considered whether she met the criteria for enhanced banding. Although the Council’s housing team could have made that decision earlier, if it had consulted with another Council department, this delay did not cause Ms X a significant injustice because when, band A was awarded, she retained the effective date of 1 December 2023.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman