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

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the priority band awarded on the Council’s housing register and its decision she only needed two bedrooms. Ms X said the Council’s decisions had caused significant anxiety.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

Reassessment – November 2023

5. The Council re-assessed Ms X’s housing register application ahead of changes to its allocation scheme that were effective from 1 April 2024. It awarded band 4 and said Ms X needed two bedrooms. Ms X asked it to review its decision. Neither the priority band awarded, nor the bedroom need changed as a result of the review. The Council accepts a delay in carrying out a review, due to increased demand at the time. However, the delay in carrying out the review did not cause Ms X an injustice because the review decision was issued in March 2024, and the new scheme was not effective until 1 April. We will not consider this part of the complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify this.

Medical form – September 2024

6. In September 2024, Ms X submitted a fresh medical form. She said she needed an extra bedroom because she was not able to share a room with her partner. She also said she could not manage the stairs and could not access the shower over the bath. The Council considered the medical form but decided band 4 was appropriate and said there was no medical evidence to support the need for a third bedroom. It suggested she contact its equipment and adaptations team for support with bathing. It said Ms X could ask for a review of the decision.
7. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s decision and also complained it had given inconsistent information about the type of property she could bid for. The Council explained she could bid on two bedroom bungalows or flats on lower floors. It confirmed she was in band 4 because she was adequately housed in a two bedroom bungalow and had not provided sufficient medical evidence to support a need for three bedrooms.
8. In February 2025, a housing needs report was completed. This said Ms X struggled to access the bath and needed a level access shower. It also said her current property had three steps to access it, but she needed a ground floor property with level access or a maximum of two steps. A few days later, Ms X provided a GP letter (dated June 2024) that said she was sleeping on the sofa as she was not comfortable with her partner, and this was affecting her quality of sleep. The Council considered the report and GP letter. It agreed she needed a third bedroom but asked her to provide further information to confirm her current bathroom could not be adapted. It said she could ask for a review of that decision.
9. Following a stage 2 complaint, the Council carried out a further review of the medical evidence and awarded band 2. Ms X had a further right of review, but the Council told us she had not asked for one. It also told us Ms X had not missed an offer for a three bedroom bungalow because there were a very limited number available and those let in the last two years have been to applicants in band 1.
10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether the Council’s decisions are correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published scheme.
11. The Council has considered the information and evidence available at each decision point, it has considered its published scheme and has explained the reasons for its decisions. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation. Ms X had a right of review if she disagreed with the Council’s decision to award band 2 and it was reasonable for her to exercise that right. In any case, any delay in awarding band 2 has not caused an injustice because she has not missed out on an offer of a suitable property because all those that have become available have been offered to applicants in band 1. Therefore, there is insufficient injustice caused to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman