Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about housing allocations banding because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has refused to increase his banding for housing allocations from Band B to Band A to take account of his poor mental health.
2. Mr Y says his mental health has worsened because of the Council’s decision not to increase his banding and he believes being put into Band A would improve his mental wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y was accepted as a homelessness applicant to the Council’s housing register in February 2024. As part of this he was awarded Band B priority and has been eligible to bid on one-bedroom homes since this point.
6. Mr Y complained to the Council about his bidding band in March 2025. He told the Council his mental health was being affected by the wait for housing, which for those in Mr Y’s situation is usually a minimum of three years. Mr Y said his banding was unsuitable and asked for it to be increased from Band B to Band A.
7. Under the Council’s housing allocations policy, it describes the criteria for Band A. This includes circumstances such as if you are in hospital and cannot be discharged because you have nowhere to go and there is no suitable temporary accommodation, or you are a police witness, and your life is at risk as a consequence of providing assistance to the police.
8. The Council considered Mr Y’s own situation and found that none of the criteria for Band A applied to Mr Y. It explained to Mr Y in its complaint response that as he did not meet the criteria for Band A, but did still meet the criteria for Band B, which was the next highest banding available, it would not change his existing banding. Mr Y complained to us.
9. We are not an appeal body. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
10. In this case, the Council has considered the information Mr Y provided to it and its housing allocations policy. It has applied its allocations policy to his request for his banding to be changed and has explained why Mr Y does not meet the criteria within its policy for his banding to be changed from Band B to Band A.
11. As the Council has properly considered the issue before reaching its decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman