Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about how the Council considered Mrs X’s housing register application. We have previously considered one of Mrs X’s complaints and there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation into the other complaints.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council:

• Refused to backdate her band A priority to 2020.
• Failed to properly consider key medical evidence when assessing her housing application.
• Delayed in reviewing her medical evidence.

2. Mrs X says that, as a result, she and her children are living in unsuitable accommodation which is causing significant distress to her and affecting her children’s health. Mrs X wants the Council to make a direct offer of housing.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X is on the Council’s housing register. The Council placed Mrs X in band A with a band date of January 2023 which was when its new Housing Allocations Scheme came into effect. Mrs X considered her banding date should reflect the date she joined the housing register which was some years earlier.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X previously made a complaint to us about this matter. I am mindful that the Council explained the banding decision to Mrs X again in response to her recent complaint. But we have previously decided this complaint so we cannot consider it again.
9. In May 2025, Mrs X asked the Council to allow her to bid on four bedroom properties and submitted medical evidence to support her request. In response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council said it had considered her request and medical evidence. It awarded her four-bedroom eligibility and confirmed she was in band A. The Council said it had not changed her medical priority.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about how the Council considered her medical evidence. Any delay in considering the evidence was not so prolonged as to cause significant injustice to Mrs X. The Council placed Mrs X in band A which is the highest priority band. So, any fault in how the Council considered the medical evidence will not have affected Mrs X’s priority banding. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation of Mrs X’s complaint.
11. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council explained why it could not make a direct offer of housing to Mrs X. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council considered Mrs X’s request. The Council has explained why it will not make a direct offer to her.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have previously decided one of her complaints and there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation into the other complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman