Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. She said it failed to properly consider medical and mental health needs in the household. Ms X said the Council’s lack of support caused significant stress and meant both she and another household member felt suicidal.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X previously complained about the Council's housing register review decision dated August 2023. After investigating, we issued a final decision in January 2024, in which we did not find fault with the decision-making process.
6. Ms X later provided further evidence, and the Council reviewed the application again in November 2024. It awarded band 2A priority, effective from 12 November 2024. This reflected that a household member had been assessed as being eligible for the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) scheme. Also in November 2024, it placed Ms X on auto-bidding, which means its system automatically registers a bid on suitable properties to maximise her chance of success.
7. The Council accepts band 2A priority should have been effective from 29 October 2024 but was recorded as being effective from 12 November 2024. The Council told us Ms X has recently been offered a property but, if that does not proceed, it will amend the effective date on its records.

My assessment

8. 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 decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
9. Ms X had the right to ask the Council to review its decision in November 2024 if she disagreed with it and, despite her personal difficulties, it was reasonable for her to ask for a review.
10. That said, the priority band awarded in November 2024 was in line with the Council’s published scheme. Although the effective date was incorrect, this was only by two weeks and is unlikely to have caused a significant delay in Ms X getting a property offer. There is therefore insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman