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. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to review her housing application status after it ended its homelessness Relief duty to her in 2025. She says her priority banding was reduced and her eligibility for 2-bedroomed housing removed. She wants the Council to re-instate her earlier banding of Band P and two-bedroom need.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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’s response. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says the Council removed her housing Band P status following a decision to end her homelessness application. She says it has also reduced her needs to 1-bedroom accommodation when she says she needs two bedrooms because her mother stays over as her carer.
6. The Council told Ms X in March 2025 that it was ending its homelessness Relief duty because it decided that she was not homeless or under threat of homelessness. When Ms X submitted a homelessness application her banding was changed from Band 2 to Band P which is a discretionary banding for applicants in urgent or severe need and can apply for up to 3 months. Because Ms X has a medical condition and she had applied as homeless she was awarded this status.
7. Ms X was offered a two-bedroom housing association property in January but the Council says she refused to view it because she believed it was too far away. Ms X disputes this but she did not ask the Council to re-offer it. She was matched to another property by the same social landlord shortly afterwards. The landlord passed her over as a candidate because it understood she required ground floor only, but she had previously asked for this restriction to be removed from her application in December 2024.
8. The Council ended its homelessness duty and told Ms X that she was no longer eligible for Band P as her homeless needs had ended and she had refused the first offer made to her which was suitable for her needs. Her banding initially was reduced to Band 3, but on assessment of her medical needs was returned to Band 2 which was her previous priority status before the Band P award.
9. The Council also told Ms X that her housing need for 2 bedrooms had been reduced because her mother was a council tenant living nearby within walking distance and did not need to be a live-in carer.
10. 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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Ms X should be placed in a higher banding
11. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or 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

12. 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