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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council reducing his housing register priority from Band 2 to Band 3 following a change in its allocations policy. He says he was in Band 2 for 5 years previously and had a good chance of being rehoused but now he is a low priority banding with over 70 applicants ahead of him.

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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he was on the Council’s housing register in Band 2 for five years. In 2024 the Council informed him that it had changed its allocations policy and required documents to support the information he provided on his application. Prior to this the Council designated banding from the applicants form and made verification checks only when offers were made.
6. The Council considered his documents and then advised him it had reduced his banding to Band 3 because he was in fact a lodger in a property and not the tenant so he did not warrant Band 2 status.
7. Mr X complained about the new banding and his application did not become live in the new banding for over 8 weeks. The Council investigated his complaint but did not change the priority because it says this is correct and would have applied from five years ago had the documents been previously required. It told him that if he believes he has had any changes in his circumstances which he can provide evidence of he could provide this under a banding review request, which is under s.166A of the housing Act 1996.
8. The Council accepted that its communications in dealing with his complaint had been slow and that there was delay in re-instating his application. It does not consider he missed any offers in this time because he is a low banding. It offered him £100 for the inconvenience and delay. This is a reasonable offer for the inconvenience he experienced.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. In this case the Council did not significantly change its housing allocations criteria but only the verification procedure of requiring documentary evidence with the application. There is no evidence to suggest Mr X was placed in the wrong priority banding.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman