Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase her priority banding or backdate her waiting time. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X joined the Council’s housing register several years ago.
2. In early 2024, the Council increased Miss X’s priority banding from Band D to Band C priority shortly after she moved to her current property.
3. Miss X complains, following a review in June 2025, the Council refused to increase her priority banding to Band B. She says the Council refused to reinstate her almost 20 year wait time, which it removed after she moved to her current property. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her requests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In early 2024, Miss X moved to her current property.
9. In April, she asked the Council to reinstate her almost 20 year wait time, which she lost when she moved to her current property. Several weeks later, the Council wrote to Miss X refusing her request. It said that Miss X’s accrued waiting time ended after she successfully bid on her current property and accepted the property. The Council had considered her waiting time when allocating her the property. I have seen no evidence the Council unduly delayed before making this decision. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. In June 2025, the Council reviewed Miss X’s banding, but refused to award Band B. The Council decided to uphold its decision that Band C (with support needs priority) was the highest banding it could award. The Council gave clear reasons that were in line with its Allocations Scheme and responded directly to the points Miss X raised in her review request. It explained Miss X’s circumstances did not meet the higher threshold for Band B because Miss X was not currently receiving support from social services or any other Council services to support her need to move. Rather, it decided Band C was still the correct banding, which recognised Miss X’s need to move closer to her support network to help meet her mental health needs. The Council explained to Miss X that she could request a formal assessment from its Health and Housing Team if she thought her health was significantly deteriorating due to housing circumstances.
11. This decision is in line with the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme. The Council gave Miss X clear reasons as to why Band C was the highest banding it could award after reviewing all information and evidence available to it. It has not denied Miss X priority under its Scheme, but explained why it cannot award a higher banding. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
12. As the Council’s banding review decision did not change the outcome, I consider any delay in it completing this did not cause significant injustice. Therefore, I will not investigate

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase her priority banding or backdate her waiting time. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman