Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about disrepair in his council property and its assessment of his housing register priority. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions related to housing disrepair because it was acting in its role as social landlord. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its handling of his requests for medical priority on the housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed completing repairs to his council property and the work completed was sub-standard. He also says it wrongly refused to award him medical priority on its housing register. He says the matter has caused distress and affected his health. He wants the Council to offer him a suitable property.

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.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about disrepair in his council property. Mr X is a council tenant and so the Council’s actions related to this matter are in its role as a social housing landlord. The law prevents us from investigating a council’s management of housing when it is acting in its role as social landlord.
8. The Council accepted Mr X wanted to move and accepted him onto it housing register for re-housing. It considered Mr X’s request for medical priority in October 2023 and July 2024 but decided there was not enough evidence to increase his priority banding on medical grounds.
9. In early 2025, the Council considered new medical information and awarded Mr X medical priority. Mr X is currently in the highest band for applicants who need re-housing due to medical needs.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council considered the supporting information available at the time of each decision. It awarded medical priority when it received additional information related to Mr X’s medical conditions and was satisfied there was sufficient evidence to support a priority medical award. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot investigate the Council’s actions in its role a social landlord and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it considered his housing priority to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman