Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing banding priority in 2024. She says that she asked for an explanation why she was not eligible for 3-bedroom priority and complained when she did not receive one. She believes her child’s medical and behavioural needs should give her a higher priority than her current banding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s review of her case. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy..
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says her housing application was assessed in September 2024 as being eligible to bid on two-bedroom vacancies. She asked the Council to re-consider this because one of her children has medical and behavioural issues which she believes requires an additional bedroom.
6. She did not receive a reply and in February 2025 submitted a formal complaint. She complained to us in May and within days of doing so the Council issued its review response. The Council told her that she currently does not meet the threshold for an additional bedroom under the allocations policy because there is insufficient evidence to support her need for a separate room.
7. The Council told her that she would need to provide more detailed medical evidence supporting her request and a clearer explanation of how her disabled living allowance payment is based. The Council said if she can produce new evidence it will carry out a further review. When her eldest child reaches age 16 in approximately one year she will automatically qualify for an additional room on overcrowding grounds.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The Council delayed carrying out the review, but in this case the outcome was unchanged and so no injustice arises from the delay which affects Ms X’s housing priority.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman