Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the priority the Council awarded on its housing register and said the Council had not properly considered the impact of their child being sexually assaulted outside the building they live in. She said the family do not feel safe in their current property, which has affected their physical and mental health.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We can 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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. In July 2024, in a review decision, the Council confirmed that band 3 medical priority had been awarded, effective from February 2021, and explained its reasons for deciding the application did not meet the criteria for band 2.
7. In October 2024, Ms X’s child was sexually assaulted close to their property. The police arrested the perpetrator, but he later accessed the site, despite bail conditions not to do so.
8. In early November, Ms X’s landlord, a social landlord, but not one of the Council’s housing partners, made an application to the Council’s Emergency Housing Panel (EHP). The landlord said Ms X needed to be rehoused as the family no longer felt safe in their home and the landlord did not have any other suitable property within its stock that it could move her to. The police and a social worker supported the request for rehousing.
9. The Council’s EHP considered the application. It did not agree to award emergency priority. In its complaint response, the Council explained:
• it had considered the request despite the landlord not being one of its housing partners, which is usually a requirement for applications to be considered;
• it only awarded emergency priority in the most serious cases, such as where someone’s life is in danger or the welfare of a child was seriously prejudiced. It did not consider that threshold was met in this case;
• it wrote to the landlord, following the panel to confirm its decision and set out Ms X’s possible options for rehousing.
10. One of these options was for Ms X to pursue a homelessness application. The records show Ms X considered this but decided not to pursue that option because it was likely a privately rented sector property would be offered, which Ms X did not want as she currently has a secure tenancy.

My assessment

11. We have previously considered a complaint about the medical priority award confirmed in July 2024, so we will not consider further any concerns about the priority awarded at that stage.
12. In relation to the incident in October 2024, the Council considered the evidence from all the parties and its allocation scheme. It made its decision without delay. Since the application was made by the landlord on this occasion, it was appropriate for the Council to confirm to the landlord its decision not to award emergency priority. It subsequently explained to Ms X the circumstances in which it would make such an award and that it did not consider her application met that criteria.
13. 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. In this case, although I appreciate Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
14. Further, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X wants, which is to ask the Council to urgently rehouse her. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their allocations scheme and the priority awarded is in line with the published scheme.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman