Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council has handled her housing application. We could not achieve anything more than the Council’s investigation and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its recent decision regarding her priority banding to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council has handled her housing application. She says there have been delays and poor communication and although the Council has now reviewed her application, it has refused to increase her priority banding. She wants the Council to increase her priority banding.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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

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. In September 2023, the Council accepted Ms X onto its housing register and placed her in priority band three.
7. In its complaint response to Ms X in March 2024, the Council accepted there had been delays and poor communication in responding to her requests and its handling of her complaint. It sincerely apologised to her for this. It offered her £350 in recognition of the distress caused and time and trouble pursuing her complaint. Ms X accepted this offer.
8. During March and April 2024, the Council contacted Ms X’s housing officer to request further information about the risk of anti- social behaviour. It kept Ms X updated during this process. Once provided, the Council reviewed Ms X’s priority banding. It decided there was insufficient evidence to support an increase in Ms X’s priority banding. It told Ms X and her housing officer of the decision. It said if the housing officer could provide additional information, it would conduct a further banding review.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint about delay and poor communication. The apology and payment offered by the Council and accepted by Ms X is in an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. We could not add to the Council’s response and an investigation would be unlikely to achieve anything more.
10. The Council considered whether the evidence provided warranted an increase in her priority banding due to the risks of anti-social behaviour. It decided band three remained appropriate. We will not investigate this. The Council appropriately considered Ms X’s request and the additional supporting information provided before reaching its decision. Although I accept Ms X disagrees with the decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the decision was reached to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not achieve anything more and there is insufficient evidence of fault in its recent actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman