Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing her housing register application and its failure to award band A priority. Ms X says her current housing is significantly affecting the physical and mental health of her household and they need urgent rehousing.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X applied to join the Council’s housing register in June 2024. As she had not received a decision, she made a formal complaint in September 2024. In early November Ms X provided an occupational therapist (OT) report on her current housing.
6. On 22 January 2025 the Council accepted Ms X’s application and placed it in band D on the basis of a low medical or welfare need to move. Ms X asked for a review and provided letters from two health professionals in support of her request for band A priority.
7. On 17 March, the Council awarded band C priority, effective from 22 January 2025, which was the date she provided the additional medical evidence that made her eligible for increased priority. It set out the evidence it had considered and explained the reasons for its decision.
8. Ms X remained unhappy. She said band C was not correct and she had now lost eight months of “waiting time” due to the change in the effective date. She said her health had deteriorated and was now life-threatening.
9. In April 2025, the Council’s Head of Service reviewed the application and decided that band C was appropriate. The decision letter explained why the criteria for band A was not met and what further medical evidence Ms X could provide to support a request for increased priority.

My assessment

10. The Council accepts there was a delay in assessing Ms X’s application, which was due to a backlog. However, when the banding decision was made this was back-dated to the date of the original application so the delay did not cause Ms X a sufficient injustice to warrant further investigation. The Council has explained the steps it has taken to reduce the time it takes to assess applications.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
12. The Council initially awarded band D based on the information provided. Although it did not give detailed reasons for the band award, it was sufficient for Ms X to make an appropriate request for a review, which she did. The review decision considered the additional medical evidence provided and awarded increase priority, which was effective from the date Ms X provided the additional evidence. The further review explained why Ms X did not meet the criteria for band A.
13. The Council’s decisions show that, at each stage, it considered the information provided and its allocations scheme and its decisions were in line with the scheme. It provided appropriate reasons and, apart from the initial delay in assessing the application, there was no undue delay in its decision-making. We will not investigate further because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify this.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman