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’s failure to give his housing application sufficient priority before it was removed from the housing register following a change in the allocations policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council. 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 his application was removed from the housing register in 2024 when he was experiencing problems from disrepair in his social rented home and also neighbour problems which the landlord was aware of. He says he should have been given high priority to move but the Council removed his application when it changed its housing allocations policy in 2024.
6. The Council says Mr X’s application was in Band D and in April 2024 its housing allocations policy was changed which effectively removed Band D because the lowest-priority bandings had no realistic chance of being rehoused in a reasonable timescale. The Council wrote to applicants in advance and gave them until December 2024 to ask for a review if they believed they had circumstances which may place them higher than Band D.
7. Mr X believes he has compelling reasons for having a higher priority and had asked the Council to consider him for a direct offer emergency transfer. The Council says he did not provide sufficient evidence that the repairs or neighbour issues warranted a management transfer. The Council also advised him to provide medical evidence for a review if he wanted to challenge the decision to remove his Band D application.
8. It says he did not provide this but that he could submit a new application with this evidence if he has now obtained it. If the evidence is sufficient to award priority higher than Band D his case would be restored to the housing register.
9. We cannot consider the housing disrepair and neighbour issues because these matters are outside our jurisdiction and Mr X has made complaints to the Housing Ombudsman service about them. We can consider his housing application decision.
10. The Council considered Mr X’s case and did not award him emergency transfer status because there was not the high standard of evidence available to support a move on these grounds. His application was removed along with all others on the same banding following a lengthy notification period. He had an opportunity to submit medical evidence for a review of the decision to remove the application. He did not do so but could still submit a new application with any new evidence to support it.
11. 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.
12. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or 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.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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