Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about her housing register priority award and the Council’s handling of her re-housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in her priority band award and an investigation would be unlikely to achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has refused to award her emergency priority on its housing register. She says her current housing is unsafe for her family. She also complains of delays processing her application and poor communication. She wants the Council to award her emergency priority or make her a direct offer of a suitable property.

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
• 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 April 2023, Ms X applied to the Council to be re-housed on medical grounds. The Council accepted her application and in November 2023, awarded her priority band 1B. Ms X was dissatisfied with this decision and requested a review.
7. In March 2024, the Council reviewed its decision and increased her housing priority to band 1A on medical grounds. It backdated the award to her application date of April 2023.
8. Ms X remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to increase her priority to emergency band. She said her family was unsafe in the current property and had an urgent need to move. The Council said she did not meet the criteria for emergency banding as this was only awarded in exceptional circumstances, for example, where there was an immediate threat to life, or the occupant was housebound. It said it accepted there were safety risks in her current property, but it considered that these had been mitigated by safety measures which had been put in place.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s award of priority band 1A on medical grounds appears in line with its housing allocations policy and the Council has appropriately backdated the award to the date of her application. Although I accept Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the decision was reached. We cannot question a decision taken without fault.
10. In its complaint responses the Council accepted there had been delay and poor communication during its handling of her application. It apologised to her for this and for any upset caused. It has backdated her increased priority to the date of her application. We will not investigate this as it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision related to her housing priority and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman