Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to award him only Band D priority which is for one-bedroom accommodation. He says he needs at least two bedrooms because his children have a need to be at his home 50% of the time. The Council removed his previous higher banding when it reviewed details of his court child arrangement order. He wants the Council to re-instate his previous higher banding.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

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 he applied to the Council for housing following separation from his partner. He says he has an order from the family court which allows him 50% access to his children. In February 2024 he was told by a housing officer that he had 3-bedroom need and his priority banding was increased to Band B following a homelessness application. However, in October a review of his case ended with a decision that he only qualifies for Band D. This is because the previous officer overlooked the details of his order and that it is dependent on his children having a separate bedroom.
6. Mr X asked the Council to review his banding (under s.166A of the housing Act 1996 part 6). The Council reviewed the decision and told him the order specifies that the children should live with their mother and she receives child benefit for them at her address. It told him that its allocations policy excludes applicants where shared parenting is not the child’s primary residence. It quoted relevant case law and told Mr X that he only qualifies as a single applicant with one-bedroom need. This is why his banding was changed to Band D.
7. 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.
8. The Council made an error when it awarded Mr X a higher banding than his circumstances merited under the allocations policy. It corrected this before any flawed offer could be made and placed him back in the Band D category. He asked for a review which was his right and the Council reviewed the case but did not change the banding priority.
9. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ 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

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman