Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to offer suitable alternative accommodation or its delays in assessing Mrs X’s housing register application. The Council has upheld part of the complaint and apologised to Mrs X for the delays. Further investigation by us would not be proportionate. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says she and her husband both require a move on disability and medical grounds. Mrs X has multiple health issues and mobility issues. In her current privately rented accommodation, Mrs X says she cannot climb the stairs or get in and out of the bath.
2. In May 2024, Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing register. Following this, Mrs X challenged the Council’s banding decision, which led to the Council increasing this to Band C. But, Mrs X complains about the Council’s complaint handling, its failure to keep her updated on her housing register application and its failure to move Mr and Mrs X to suitable accommodation.
3. Mrs X says she and her husband are now desperate.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In May 2024, Mr and Mrs X applied to join the Council’s housing register.
8. In March 2025, the Council reviewed Mrs X’s banding and increased this to Band C with a two-bedroom need.
9. In May, after reassessing Mr and Mrs X’s health needs, the Council upheld its banding decision and did not award any additional priority.
10. The Council accepted there were delays in the Council assessing Mrs X’s first medical form when she applied to join the register. The delays were caused by a high volume of medical forms and a backlog in the Council assessing these during spring and summer 2024. It apologised to Mr and Mrs X for the delays.
11. The Council’s apology sufficiently remedies the injustice experienced by Mr and Mrs X by its delays. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating. This is because:

• after reviewing Mrs X’s banding and increasing this to Band C, the Council backdated the priority date.
• And it is unlikely Mrs X missed out on successfully bidding on a property during the delay. I say this because the Council has a very limited supply of two-bedroom bungalows and not all of these meet Mr and Mrs X’s additional health-related housing needs. The highest bid position reached by Mr and Mrs X through automatic bids on two-bedroom properties was 28. Further, the Council has made efforts to offer Mr and Mrs X the next available two-bedroom bungalow that it considered suitable to their housing needs. It explained that, outside this direct offer, Mr and Mrs X would likely wait a long time to successfully bid through its choice-based letting system.
• The Council reassured Mr and Mrs X that the backlog has since been resolved and it completed the most recent reassessment within 12 days.

12. So, we will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to offer Mr and Mrs X suitable alternative accommodation.
13. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of its direct offer of a two-bedroom bungalow. Mr and Mrs X decided to refuse the offer as they did not consider it met their needs. A Council officer explained to them there would likely be a lengthy wait before they received a better offer. This advice was aimed at managing Mr and Mrs X’s expectations. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to keep her updated about her housing register application. The Council has explained that it does not routinely update applicants on unsuccessful bids. Rather, it will update her on possible offers. The Council is allowed to prioritise its resources in this way. Further, there has been a significant volume of contact between the Council and Mrs X since May 2024, which would have likely covered any relevant updates. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
15. It is not normally a good use of our limited resources to investigate a Council’s complaint handling alone if we are not investigating the substantive matter. We will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to offer suitable alternative accommodation or its delays in assessing Mrs X’s housing register application. The Council has upheld part of the complaint and apologised to Mrs X for the delays. Further investigation by us would not be proportionate. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman