Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s information which it sent her about her housing application priority. She says she received a letter which advised her she was both in Band 3 priority but also that she was being elevated to Band 1 as her home was due for demolition. She later was told the property was not to be demolished and the letter was an error.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says she has been trying to get a higher priority banding for her housing application for the past three years because her current home is overcrowded and she is short of a bedroom.
6. In early 2024 the Council informed her of her banding following a medical review. The letter said that her banding would remain unchanged at Band 3 but also contained a paragraph saying her banding would change to Band 1 because her building was scheduled for demolition in future.
7. Following an enquiry by Miss X, the Council told her that the added paragraph was a mistake and that her building was not due to be demolished so she would remain on Band 3.
8. Miss X was upset by the Council’s false hope raised by its error. She says this affected her mental health. I have seen the letter and it is clear that the content was contradictory. However, the Council explained to Miss X that the letter was a mistake within 2 weeks of issue. Miss X did not miss out on any offers because of the letter and as her building is not to be demolished, her current banding is correct. It would have caused injustice to other applicants in Band 1 if she had been made an offer on the basis of an incorrect assessment.

Miss X wants the Council to increase her priority to Band 1 because of its error. Applications must reflect the correct priority according to the Council’s allocations scheme and at present the Band 3 assessment is the correct one for Miss X’s circumstances. the Council has apologised for its error and this is sufficient for the injustice which it caused.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman