Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault and any outstanding injustice is insignificant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has misapplied its housing allocations policy and wrongly refused to offer her a property by direct allocation. She says it delayed applying her medical priority, which has led to her missing out on being considered for suitable properties. She says the Council’s action amount to disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. She wants the Council to make her a direct offer of a suitable property and compensate her for the errors and distress caused.

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 outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council explained why it did not consider her application to be suitable for consideration for a direct let. It said she did not have a need for a specially adapted property and there was no evidence she was unable to place bids through its bidding system. It said its policy allowed it to use its discretion to decide which cases to refer for a direct allocation and in her case, it did not consider it appropriate to do so.
7. It acknowledged it had delayed considering medical recommendations made in March 2024 and updating her housing application accordingly. It apologised to her for this. It said it had updated her priority category in March 2025. It said its records showed there were no suitable properties advertised in her new category between March 2024 and 2025, so she had not missed any opportunities to bid for suitable properties.
8. It did not agree its actions amounted to disability discrimination. It said its housing allocations policy positively discriminated in favour of disabled people by having specific categories for those requiring adapted properties. It said the delay applying her medical priority had not disadvantaged her, nor had it delayed a direct allocation of a property, as regardless of the delay, it had decided her case was not appropriate to refer for consideration of a direct allocation.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council’s allocations policy allows it to use its discretion to decide who it will refer for consideration of a direct offer of a property. The Council has considered Ms X’s application but does not consider it suitable for referral for consideration of a direct let. This is the Council’s decision to make. Its policy is clear that this decision is made at the Council’s discretion and on a case by case basis. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has reached this decision and so we cannot question the outcome.
10. The Council has accepted it delayed updating her housing priority category with her medical housing recommendations and apologised to her for this. It has checked its records and confirmed there were no suitable properties available for her to bid on during the period she was in the incorrect category. The Council’s apology is a suitable remedy for any distress caused by the delay. As she does not appear to have missed out on any suitable properties, there is insufficient outstanding injustice to warrant an investigation into this.
11. Ms X states the Council’s actions amount to disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, but I have seen no evidence of this. I accept Ms X disagrees with decisions the Council has made, but this does not mean the Council’s actions are discriminatory. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman