Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s housing application. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her housing application is in the wrong priority band and did not have the correct effective date for some time. She argues she therefore missed offers of housing. Miss X also criticises the Council’s housing 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s housing allocations policy. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Complaint about priority given to Miss X’s housing application

5. Miss X’s social housing application has Band B priority on the Council’s housing register. Miss X argues it should be in Band A. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not for us to decide the priority an application should have. As paragraph 2 said, we can only consider whether the Council reached its decision properly.
6. The Council decided Miss X’s circumstances, including family members’ disabilities and medical conditions, merited Band B priority. The Council gave reasons for this decision related to its policy and to information it had about the family’s circumstances.
7. Miss X argues it is wrong the Council’s policy gives Band A priority only to some applicants with a medical or disability-related need to move, such as those needing wheelchair-adapted properties, rather than giving that priority to all applicants with medical or disability reasons for moving. She questions whether the Council’s position aligns with the legal duty to give “reasonable preference” for housing allocations to certain groups including “people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds (including any grounds relating to a disability)”. (Housing Act 1996, s166A(3)(d))
8. The duty to give reasonable preference to certain categories is not the same as having to give equal preference to everyone in that category. Councils can give different levels of priority to applicants with different circumstances within a “reasonable preference” category. Swale Borough Council gives some applicants with a medical or welfare need to move Band C priority, some Band B (including Miss X) and some Band A. That is not fault. It is more priority than many applicants outside the “reasonable preference” groups receive. Nor does the duty to give reasonable preference to some groups mean those groups must always have absolute priority over everybody outside those categories.
9. The Council is entitled to have this policy. Its decision about which band to put Miss X’s application in seems properly reached. So, as paragraph 2 explained, we cannot criticise the decision. Therefore there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating Miss X’s complaint.
10. Miss X also argues it is wrong that applicants wanting to move to a smaller home have Band A priority when applicants in her circumstances do not. The Council is entitled to give very high priority to applicants wanting to leave larger social housing properties. Many councils do this to speed up the availability of larger homes for which there is high demand. The Council is not at fault here.
11. I appreciate Miss X would like the Council’s allocation arrangements to be different, but that is not a matter for the Ombudsman.

Complaint about the application’s “effective date”

12. Miss X also complained to us that the Council delayed giving her application the correct effective date within Band B. This concern only seems to have arisen after the Council reviewed the application in late January 2025, by which time Miss X had already complained to the Council about the other matters mentioned above. So the complaint about the effective date is a new matter. I have not seen evidence a complaint about this has completed the Council’s complaint procedure. So the restriction in paragraph 3 applies here. I see no good reason to deprive the Council of a reasonable opportunity to deal with this point. So, if Miss X wants to pursue this, she should use the Council’s complaint procedure first.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault for us to investigate the priority the Council gave the application. The Council has not had a reasonable opportunity to consider the complaint about the effective date.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman