Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about housing priority. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had not considered medical need and awarded her incorrect housing priority.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Mrs X asked the Council to review her housing priority, she was Band C.
8. The Council reviewed Ms X’s priority using all the information available to it at the time, including her housing file, medical evidence and school letters.
9. In February 2025, the Council decided that Mrs X had been awarded the correct priority, it said that she was Band C. It recognised Mrs X was overcrowded by one bedroom in line with its allocation policy.
10. The Council advised Mrs X that a change of circumstances form could be submitted after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

My assessment

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 you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
12. The Council’s review decision shows it considered all the information it had and its published allocations scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding band C was in line with that scheme. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify further investigation by us.
13. Although there was a delay in carrying out the review, this did not cause a significant injustice because the priority band remained unchanged.
14. The Council told us it has now received evidence of Mrs X’s current pregnancy and will carry out a further review of her application.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman