Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Mr X’s housing register priority banding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council removed his priority banding after he refused an offer of a property. Mr X said that the decision made him feel anxious. He would like the Council to reinstate his original priority banding.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X applied to join Thurrock Council’s housing register in 2023. The Council accepted Mr X’s application in Autumn 2023 and awarded him band 3 priority. The Council wrote to Mr X to confirm the priority banding, the letter stated that he would receive one offer of suitable accommodation and warned that if a property offer was refused, he could lose his priority banding.
6. Mr X placed a bid on a flat in spring 2025 via the Council’s choice-based lettings system. The Council wrote to Mr X to offer him a tenancy on the flat. Within the letter it noted that if the property was refused, his application would be reviewed in line with the housing allocations policy and his priority banding may be removed as a result.
7. Mr X viewed the property and informed Council staff that he would refuse the tenancy. Mr X gave reasons for why he was refusing.
8. The Council wrote to Mr X after the viewing to confirm that because he refused a suitable offer of a property, he no longer qualified for priority banding.
9. Mr X appealed the decision. The Council rejected the appeal because Mr X had placed a bid knowing the type of property he was bidding for and had not provided any evidence to support him reasons for refusing.
10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. The Council’s allocation scheme states that if an applicant refuses an offer of suitable accommodation, their priority will be removed.
12. We will not investigate this complaint because we are not likely to find fault. The Council considered the matters Mr X put forward at appeal and followed its published housing allocations policy.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman