Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Miss X’s housing register application. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council refused to prioritise her housing application, despite a Family Court order requiring suitable accommodation for full-time care of her son. Miss X stated that this has had a negative impact upon her mental health and has caused anxiety. Miss X would like the Council to reassess her housing application and award her Band A priority in line with its allocations policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Miss X contacted the Council in autumn 2024 to update her housing register application. Miss X told the Council that a Family Court order stated her son should live with Miss X once she had secured permanent housing for herself and Y.
5. The Council did not add Y to Miss X’s housing application at first. Miss X complained to the Council and provided a copy of the Family Court order. The Council added Y to Miss X’s housing register application and increased the priority banding from D to C2. Miss X was then able to bid for two bedroomed properties.
6. The Council did not agree the Family Court order specified any urgency about Y moving to Miss X’s care, therefore said it did not warrant the award of Band A.
7. I have considered the steps the Council took when deciding to change Miss X’s housing application banding from D to C2. It considered the Court Order and its allocations policy. It explained why it did not warrant Band A. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it took the decision to justify our involvement.
8. Miss X stated that Y moved to live with her in Summer 2025. The Council confirmed it had not received any updates to Miss X’s housing application in Summer 2025.
9. If Miss X wants the Council to reconsider her current banding, she would need to update her housing application with the Council, so it reflected that Y now lived with her. If she disagreed with the Council’s new banding decision, she would need to ask the Council for a review.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman