Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority awarded on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council had awarded the wrong priority band on its housing register. She said it had served her landlord with an improvement notice, but the landlord was not carrying out the repairs, so she should get additional priority. She said her poor housing conditions were affecting the health of her family.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council awarded band C on its housing register in 2023, based on overcrowding. It said Ms X was short of one bedroom.
6. In 2024, Ms X contacted her MP. She said her priority band was incorrect and also reported disrepair in her private rented sector property. The Council said it had awarded the correct priority band, and she could contact its private sector housing team for help in relation to the disrepair.
7. In early 2025, the Council’s private sector housing team inspected the property. It identified category 2 hazards using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and issued a notice asking the landlord to address damp and mould.
8. The Council reviewed the housing register application in May 2025 after Ms X submitted evidence about a health condition. It decided band C priority remained appropriate and wrote to her with its decision.
9. In June, a review panel arranged by another council, reviewed the application. It considered all the information the Council held, including information from the housing standards officer and medical evidence from the hospital, and the published allocations scheme. It was satisfied band C was correct. It wrote to Ms X with its decision and explained its reasons.

My assessment

10. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the priority band decision was correct. Unless there is fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
12. I have considered the decision-making process. Council records show it considered the medical evidence Ms X provided and information from its private sector housing about the reported disrepair in the property. The review panel considered all the evidence and the published scheme, independently of the Council. It concluded band C was appropriate and this is in line with the published scheme. It explained the reasons for its decision and there was no undue delay in carrying out the review after Ms X asked for it. On this basis, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify further investigation.
13. In relation to the disrepair, I note the published scheme says additional priority can be awarded where there is an unresolvable category 1 hazard. In this case, the Council had identified a category 2 hazard, which is not as serious as a category 1 hazard, and there is no indication the hazard cannot be resolved. Therefore, the criteria for additional priority were not met.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman