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. Mrs X complained about the Council reducing her housing priority following her refusal of an offer of housing when she was on a discretionary priority banding. She says the property was not suitable because of the neighbours and that she should be allowed to remain on the higher banding. She also complained about being refused eligibility for a discretionary direct offer because the Council says she did not qualify.

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. Mrs X says she had her banding priority reduced from Band B to Band D following her refusal of an offer of accommodation when she was in a discretionary higher banding. She says the property offered was in a neighbourhood where she understood there were neighbour issues and she did not wish to move there from her existing social housing tenancy. The Council’s allocations policy states that anyone who refuses an offer in band B will be reduced to Band D for 12 months.
6. Mrs X asked the Council to review its decision which it did no February 2025. The Council upheld the original decision that her higher banding priority should be removed.
7. Mrs X also applied to be considered for a discretionary direct offer because she believes she is eligible. The Council’s policy on these applications lists the exceptional circumstances where it may make a direct offer. The Council told Mrs X that critical rehousing in a specific location was not required as she lived close enough to her brother to drive offer support. She had also been given an opportunity to move into the same street as his home but rejected it.
8. 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.
9. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of 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. In this case the Council considered Mrs X’s case according to its allocations policy and it also considered if there were any exceptional circumstances which would merit a discretionary direct offer. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that she should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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