Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify our investigation and the Council has since offered social housing.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in awarding band 1 priority on its housing register. She said this meant she remained in unsuitable accommodation where she was effectively housebound with her young child. She also complained the Council would not consider adapting a property that was advertised and told her she would need to wait for a property that was already adapted.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X, who was already on the Council’s housing register, submitted a medical form and supporting documents in August 2024. The documents included a report from Council B’s adult social care (ASC) team recommending this Council award band 1 on its housing register.
6. The Council accepts it delayed considering the information provided, for which it apologised. It said the delay was due to a revised allocations scheme coming into force in April 2024, which meant increased demand, and also the implementation of a new IT system.
7. The Council awarded band 2 high medical priority in November 2024. By this point, Ms X’s medical condition had deteriorated. She provided further medical evidence, including a report by an occupational therapist (OT). After considering the additional evidence, the Council decided band 2 was appropriate and in line with its allocations scheme but offered a further OT review. In February 2025, after considering the fresh OT report, the Council awarded band 1.
8. The Council said it had no record of advising Ms X that it could not carry out adaptations. It has since offered a property that does need adaptations.

My assessment

9. We are not an appeal body. We can consider the Council’s decision-making process, but unless we find fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
10. The law says all councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme. This Council’s scheme says it may award band 1 for those with an urgent need to move, including where it agrees to a recommendation by Council B that there is an urgent need for rehousing. It will award band 2 where there is a high need to move.
11. The Council accepted an initial delay in considering the medical forms, for which it has apologised. We would usually expect councils to backdate any increased award to the date it should have made its decision, but for its delay. In this case, the application remained in band 2, which reflects a high need to move.
12. The Council considered the evidence provided at various points but did not agree the criteria for band 1 was met until the second OT report was obtained. It is unlikely we would be able to establish the Council should have awarded band 1 earlier, because this decision is based on the Council’s view of how urgently Ms X needed to move after considering the evidence.
13. Even if we were able to establish that band 1 should have been awarded earlier, it is unlikely we would be able to say, even on balance, that Ms X missed out on an offer as a result. This is because an OT needed to assess whether any property Ms X bid on was suitable to meet her housing needs and the Council would have had to consider whether any adaptations were necessary and appropriate. This means any injustice caused is limited to uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different and that is not a sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
14. In its complaint response, the Council said it had no record its officer advised Ms X it would not carry out adaptations. It is unlikely further investigation would establish otherwise. In any case, this has not caused Ms X an injustice because the Council has since offered the property she bid on that required adaptations.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman