Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a Council decision to remove her housing register emergency priority status. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has unfairly removed her emergency priority status after she refused the offer of a property. She says the property was not suitable for her needs. She wants the Council to reinstate her emergency priority status and offer her suitable housing.

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.

(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. The Council’s housing allocations policy states that applicants with emergency priority will be made one reasonable offer of a property. If an applicant refuses a reasonable offer, the applicant will lose their emergency status and be placed in a lower priority group.
6. Ms X is on the Council’s housing register. In 2023, she was awarded emergency priority status for medical needs and eligible to bid for 1-2 bedroom properties.
7. The Council made Ms X an offer of housing in October 2024. Ms X considered the property unsuitable and so refused the offer. The Council told her it considered it a reasonable offer of a property and so her refusal was unreasonable. It removed her emergency priority on the housing register.
8. Mr X requested a review of this decision. The review concluded that the offer met the requirements of her emergency priority status and so it was a reasonable offer of housing that she had refused. It refused to reinstate her emergency priority.
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 will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s decision appears in line with its housing allocations policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman