Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint that the Council overlooked his bids for housing because he cannot work. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council overlooked him for properties as he cannot work due to a disability. He says the Council unfairly offered properties to people in lower bands with later priority dates.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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))
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Cheshire Homechoice Common Allocation Policy (2024).

Back to top

My assessment

8. In its final complaint response, the Council explained: before January 2025, it prioritised the first allocation of new build properties for working applicants with a connection to the new build’s community. As Mr Y was not working, he was placed in a lower position on the shortlist for new build properties.
9. The Council decided in line with its allocation policy in place at the time. The law says that all allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. There is not enough evidence of fault.
10. The Council also explained registered providers overlooked Mr Y for some properties because they did not consider Mr Y could afford to pay the rent. This was because he would be affected by the additional expense of the ‘bedroom tax’ for a larger property. The registered providers did not consider Mr Y could afford this on his income from benefits.
11. The Council’s policy says registered providers may assess whether applicants can afford to pay the rent for a property before an offer is made. If an applicant cannot afford to pay the rent, their bid for a property might be overlooked. The decisions to overlook Mr Y’s bids are in line with the Council’s policy. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. In January 2025, the Council expanded the priority for newly built properties to those who met its new ‘Working Plus’ definition. The Council has since awarded Mr Y this priority based on being an applicant with a disability who receives certain benefits. Mr Y’s complaints to me about the Council’s handling of his bids since January 2025 are premature. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to first complain to the Council. If Mr Y remains unhappy with the Council’s final complaint response, he may wish to then make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint that the Council was wrong to overlook his bids for housing. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman