Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make an offer of housing within the seven years which Mr X says he has been on the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of his assessment if he has any new information which may alter his priority banding.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council not making him any offers of accommodation even though he has been living in overcrowded conditions since he applied in 2018. He says he needs to be re-housed in suitable emergency or high priority accommodation immediately.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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 the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he has not been made any offers of housing since he registered on the housing list seven years ago. He says his current 3-bedroom accommodation is overcrowded with a family including six children. He was awarded Band B priority but says no 5-bedroom vacancies have been offered in this period of time.
6. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2025 about the lack of offers. The Council told Mr X that the demand for 5-bedroms is very high compared with the number of vacancies which occur and that the average waiting time is over 10 years, if at all, at present levels of demand. It advised him to seek vacancies in the private sector because the Council has very few large properties remaining.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
9. If Mr X has any new evidence which may affect his housing priority, he could provide them to the Council in a request for a banding review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to make an offer of housing within the seven years which Mr X says he has been on the housing register. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of his assessment if he has any new information which may alter his priority banding.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman