Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of its decision in November 2023 and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making in January 2025 to justify further investigation and it has already made an appropriate offer to remedy any injustice caused by the delay in making that decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. She says she has an urgent need to move, and the Council has not properly considered her circumstances, which means she is having to stay longer in unsuitable 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X submitted a change of circumstances request in October 2023. She said she was not safe in her current property and could not manage the stairs. As a result, she and her child were living with Ms X’s mother, and having to share a bedroom, which was not appropriate given the child’s age. She provided supporting evidence from a health professional.
6. The Council considered the information Ms X provided and consulted with its medical advisor. It concluded the new evidence did not change her priority on its housing register. It sent her its decision in November 2023 and said she could ask for a review of that decision if she disagreed with it.
7. In November 2024, the Council reduced her priority to band 4 because it said she had unreasonably refused three offers of housing in the previous 12 months. On 5 November, Ms X asked for a review of that decision and explained the reasons for refusing the most recent property offered. On 13 November, she made a formal complaint.
8. In its stage 2 complaint response, the Council accepted it had not passed her review request to the correct team to consider initially, for which it apologised. This meant its review decision was late, and it offered to pay her £45 for the injustice caused.
9. The Council issued its review decision on 23 January 2025. This said its decision to reduce Ms X’s priority band was correct because she had unreasonably refused the housing offered. However, it exercised discretion to reinstate her original priority as it recognised her need to move from her current housing. It said she could ask for a further review of that decision if she disagreed with it.

My assessment

10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions are correct. Unless there is 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.
11. The Council considered the medical evidence Ms X provided in November 2023 but decided this did not change her priority on its housing register. It was reasonable for Ms X to ask for a review of that decision if she disagreed with it.
12. Later, the Council reduced her priority band, following her refusal of three housing offers. Ms X asked for a review of that decision. The Council’s review decision indicates it considered all the information it had and its allocations scheme. It decided the original decision was correct, but it exercised discretion to reinstate Ms X’s previous priority. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council made that decision to justify further investigation. Further, Ms X had a further right of review, and it was reasonable for her to exercise that if she was unhappy with the decision.
13. The Council accepted there was a delay in issuing a review decision. Councils should carry out a review within 56 days. In this case, it took 79 days, which was 23 days too long. That said, this includes the Christmas period. The Council has apologised and offered to pay Ms X £45 for its delay. This is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making. It has made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused by the delay in issuing a review decision and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman