Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s priority on the housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council reduced her priority on the housing register to band three and has not put in place the reasonable adjustments she requested. Ms X wants the Council to allow her to remain in band two with no time limit or give her a suitable property in an area that meets her needs.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the lettings policy. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council placed Ms X in band two on the housing register on medical grounds. The Council reviewed her eligibility for band two after three months and then extended it by 11 months.
5. The Council moved Ms X to band three. In response to her complaint the Council explained that band two is initially awarded for three months and is then reviewed to see if it is still needed and to check the applicant is bidding for properties. The Council said it had reviewed her case after 14 months and had decided to move her to band three; the Council noted in July 2024 that Ms X had not bidded for a property since February 2023. The Council said that since 2020 Ms X had placed a bid for 11 properties and had been offered two properties which she declined. The Council suggested Ms X should increase her areas of choice when bidding and asked her to specify what Reasonable Adjustments she needs.
6. The lettings policy says the Council may reduce an applicant’s priority if they are not actively bidding. It says there is a three month time limit for a band two award.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the Council’s decision to reduce Ms X’s priority to band three reflects the policy. In addition, the policy does not say the Council must allow someone to permanently remain in band two. I appreciate Ms X may prefer to be in band two with no time limit but as this is not stated in the policy it is not something we could ask the Council to do. If Ms X thinks the policy should be changed, so there are no time limits, this is a policy change she could propose to the Council. We do not set council policy and cannot tell a council to change a policy. In addition, the policy says people need to apply for properties and the Council cannot give Ms X a property outside the bidding process.
8. Ms X has suggested she should be in band one. I have considered her medical evidence, and the criteria for band one, and there is nothing to suggest she meets the criteria for band one. In addition, people in band one are required to bid regularly which, as of July, Ms X was not doing.
9. Ms X says the Council has not applied the Reasonable Adjustments she asked for. The Council asked Ms X to specify what adjustments she needs. The Council told me Ms X has not explained what she needs. This issue does not need an investigation because Ms X has not said what Reasonable Adjustments she needs.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman