Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s requests for higher banding for housing allocations. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y, who lives in private rented accommodation, complains the Council refused to award her Band B priority under its Housing Allocations Scheme despite identifying serious hazards in her accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy 2024-2027 (available online).

Back to top

My assessment

6. In November 2024, the Council’s Private Sector Housing team (PSH team) identified category 1 hazards in Mrs Y’s private rented accommodation.
7. In December, Mrs Y asked the Council to increase her banding from Band C to Band A because of the category 1 hazards.
8. In January 2025, the Council refused Mrs Y’s request for Band A priority. It explained that the category 1 hazards did not present an imminent risk of harm to her household because they were in rooms that the family did not have to use. Further, it did not consider the family was statutorily overcrowded to qualify for Band A.
9. Mrs Y asked the Council to review its decision. She said the Council had failed to consider her two young children, one of whom was vulnerable.
10. In February, the Council told Mrs Y it had now increased her banding to Band B. This was because it accepted the category 1 hazards posed a high risk of possible serous harm and remedial works were considered unreasonable or impractical. The Council backdated her priority date to November 2024.
11. I do not consider Mrs Y suffered significant injustice due to any fault in the Council’s initial decision. This is because it awarded her Band B just three weeks later and backdated the priority date. And it is unlikely Mrs Y missed out on successfully bidding on a property during the three weeks. I say this because the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy states, due to demand outstripping supply, applicants in Band B are likely to have to wait sometime to be rehoused.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s request for higher banding. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman