The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about housing priority banding. The Council have agreed to a suitable remedy for the injustice.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council did not consider all the medical evidence when deciding her housing priority allocation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X lives with her two children and is on the Council’s housing register. We have previously considered complaints about the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s housing application. In this complaint we assessed the injustice arising from how the Council dealt with Ms X’s application from September 2024 onwards.
In November 2024 Ms X asked to be assessed for medical priority because of medical needs for both her two children and herself. In December 2024 the Council awarded Ms X a band C priority classing her family as having moderate medical needs.
In December 2024 Ms X requested a review of the decision because she felt the medical evidence supported a higher priority and the Council had not properly considered the evidence.
In October 2025 the Council completed a review of the decision. They found the evidence supported a serious medical need and awarded Ms X a band B priority. The Council backdated the effective date for Ms X’s priority band to November 2024. The Council have confirmed Ms X did not miss out on any offers of accommodation in this time. This remedies the injustice cause by the fault in the original decision.
The Council did not review Ms X’s banding decision until 43 weeks after the review was requested. The uncertainty caused by this significant delay caused Ms X further injustice.
We therefore asked the Council to apologise to Ms X and make a symbolic remedy payment of £100. The Council has agreed and will complete these actions withing four weeks.
Final decision
We have upheld Ms X’s complaint. The Council have agreed to a suitable remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman