Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that, after increasing his banding in 2025, the Council refused to backdate his priority date to when he joined its register in 2023. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. In February 2025, after reviewing updated medical evidence concerning Mr X’s wife’s medical conditions and proof of his employment in its area, the Council increased Mr X’s priority banding to Band 2. Mr X complains the Council failed to backdate his priority date to March 2023.
2. Mr X says Mrs X’s medical conditions began several years ago and have gradually worsened. For this reason, he wants the Council to backdate his priority date to when he joined its housing register because the seriousness of Mrs X’s conditions existed in March 2023. He says he contacted the Council when they could no longer cope.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In March 2023, Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council awarded Mr X Band 5 because Mr X had not shown he had a local connection to its area. This was the highest banding it could award in these circumstances.
9. In February 2025, Mr X sent the Council updated information and medical evidence concerning Mrs X’s medical conditions.
10. A Senior Occupational Therapist assessed the family’s circumstances. The Council initially awarded Band 2 due to Mrs X’s high medical and welfare needs to move. But, it reduced the banding to Band 5 because Mr X had not shown a local connection.
11. In late February, the Council increased Mr X’s banding to Band 2 as he had sent evidence from his employer showing he worked in its area. The Council upheld this decision following a review in May 2025.
12. The Council’s complaint responses show its considered Mr X’s complaint, including his request to backdate his priority band date to March 2023 and evidence provided. However, it upheld the decision that Mr X’s priority date could not be backdated in this way. It provided clear reasons for its decision that were in line with its Housing Allocations Policy. It explained:

• the Council can only make decisions based on the information available at the time. It was not until February 2025 that Mr X provided evidence showing the family met the criteria to be awarded Band 2 as well as the local connection criteria. Prior to this, the highest banding the Council could award was Band 5. It is my understanding that this was the case regardless of Mrs X’s medical conditions as no local connection has been shown. There was no basis under its Housing Allocations Policy to backdate the priority date;
• Mr X’s wait time remained unchanged as March 2023. It explained that, if two applicants bid on the same property and it decides the property is equally suitable for both bidders, then the date the applicants were awarded Band 2 priority would be considered along with their overall wait time. This was to ensure properties were allocated in line with its allocations scheme; and,
• the decision about the type of suitable properties for the family was based on recommendations by its Senior Occupational Therapist. It could not make the family a direct offer as it had to allocate properties fairly and in line with its allocations scheme. It encouraged Mr X to continue bidding on suitable properties while acknowledging the demand for adapted properties, particularly three-bedroom ones, was high and outstripped supply. It explained, in line with its Housing Allocations Policy, all bids for adapted properties must be allocated by an occupational therapist who makes decisions based on the needs of the applicant and suitability of the property.

13. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that, after increasing his banding in 2025, the Council refused to backdate his priority date to when he joined its register in 2023. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman