Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to rehouse her because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council has not resolved her housing situation. Although it has awarded band B on its housing register, there is no clear timeline for rehousing her, so she continues to live in a property that does not meet her medical needs and is overcrowded.

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 cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X’s representative and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X lives in a one bedroom Council property with her child. It is on the third floor. Ms X has medical conditions, which are made worse by the property.
8. In June 2024, the Council decided Ms X needed a two bedroom property and awarded band C priority. The Council said she needed a ground floor property (or first floor if the building had a lift) and either a wet room or a bathroom that could be adapted.
9. Ms X was unhappy with the decision and asked for a review. The Council carried a medical assessment, including a home visit. In February 2025, the Council awarded significant medical need and band B.
10. Ms X appealed in March 2025. She said she should be awarded band A and rehoused urgently. She accepted £500 compensation but said it was not enough.
11. The Council considered the appeal but decided band B was correct in July 2025. It set out its reasons for deciding the criteria for band A was not met. It considered the reports of lifts being out of service over two years but said one of the two lifts was working throughout and generally, where the lift Ms X used was out of order, it was repaired the same day. It said her reports of disrepair and pest issues did not affect her priority band and explained how she could report those concerns for them to be addressed. It said its records showed she had refused an offer to carry out adaptations to the property to meet her disability needs.
12. Ms X remained unhappy as she said there was no clear timeframe for rehousing her so she remained in unsuitable housing that did not meet her medical needs.

My assessment

13. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. We can consider its decision-making. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
14. The Council’s appeal decision shows it considered the medical evidence Ms X provided, which justified an earlier decision that she had significant medical need. It considered whether she met the criteria for band A, as set out in its published allocations scheme, and set out its reasons for deciding the criteria was not met. There is therefore insufficient fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.
15. I note there was a delay in making the appeal decision, for which the Council has apologised, which was appropriate. It is unlikely the delay meant Ms X missed out on a suitable offer of housing, so there is insufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
16. Councils are generally not able to provide a timeframe for rehousing for housing register applicants. This depends on when suitable properties become available and on whether there are other applicants in the same priority band who have been waiting longer.
17. Ms X is a Council tenant. In addressing reports disrepair, the Council is acting as a social landlord. The law says we cannot investigate complaints about council actions as a social landlord.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman