Summary: Miss X complained the Council refused her a discretionary shortlisting request for a direct offer of a property, refused to provide aids and adaptation in her current accommodation and did not properly deal with her concerns about alleged noise disturbance. There was no fault by the Council with how it dealt with Miss X’s case.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
1. unfairly refused her a discretionary shortlisting/direct offer of a property
2. refused to provide her with aids and adaptations at her current property to enable her to use her kitchen and bathroom more easily.
3. failed to take sufficient action to deal with her complaints of alleged noise nuisance from neighbouring properties.
2. Miss X said as a result she continued to live in unsuitable accommodation where she struggled to access/use the kitchen and bathroom and with ongoing noise nuisance. Miss X said the matter also caused her distress and it affected her physical and mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. I have not exercised discretion to investigate matters from 2021. These are late complaints and I consider it was reasonable for Miss X to have complained about these matters to the Ombudsman sooner. There are no good reasons to investigate them now.
8. Miss X made a complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2025 which means this investigation should start from July 2024 (12 months before she made her complaint to the Ombudsman). However, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from January 2024 to July 2025. This covers the period from when Miss X contacted the Council about her concerns with her accommodation to when Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing register

11. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Choice based lettings

13. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

14. The Council has four priority bands, Band A (the highest) to Band D (the lowest).
15. The Council recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to reconsider the qualification criteria in the case of individual applicants who would not normally qualify. In such circumstances it may be necessary to award an applicant a higher band or to increase an applicant’s priority within a band. This will be limited only to individual cases where there are exceptional circumstances such as:

• providing protection to people who need to move away from another area, to escape violence, harm, or intimidation.
• enabling those who need support to rehabilitate and integrate back into the community.
• where there is an urgent need for a particular type of property.

16. In some exceptional circumstances the Council may wish to allocate accommodation outside of the established criteria and this is allowed under the Allocations Policy. Such allocations are known as discretionary lets, for example, letting an adapted property to a particular applicant whose needs particularly match the adaptations of such property.
17. When assessing whether discretion should be applied, the Council will consider what the exceptional circumstances are. They should be unusual or remarkable circumstances which indicate that the applicant’s housing needs are more urgent than other applicants.
18. A decision as to whether to exercise discretion will be made at the point of receipt of application and again at the point of offer.

Disabled Facilities Grants

19. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are for people with a qualifying disability who need adaptations in their home to help them remain in their home. DFGs are provided under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
20. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. These include enabling the disabled person to access their home and essential facilities within the home.
21. To get a grant, an applicant or someone else living in the house must:

• be disabled
• intend to live in the property during the grant period (usually 5 years but this can be shorter, for example, if the person is terminally ill)

22. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, appropriate for the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.

Statutory Nuisances

23. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’ such as noise from premises.
24. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

25. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
26. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
27. If a council decides a noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, it must serve an abatement notice requiring the perpetrator to stop.
28. If a council decides that the noise made does not amount to a statutory nuisance, it can continue to use informal intervention to try to solve the problem. Examples of such action may include writing to the person causing the nuisance or suggesting mediation.

Background

29. Miss X was on the Council’s housing register.
30. In 2021, Miss X (a council tenant) moved to a first floor, one-bedroom property (Property 1).
31. Miss X said she started experiencing various issues such as alleged noise disturbance from neighbouring properties when she moved to Property 1. She also said the layout of Property 1 was unsuitable for her.

Key events

32. Due to the large volume of information received, this chronology includes key events in this case. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties, and it does not cover everything that happened.

2024

33. In January, Miss X informed the Council she was having difficulties with the stairs in Property 1 due to mobility issues. Miss X requested a bath, a stairlift and for the kitchen to be moved to the ground floor.
34. In April, an occupational therapist (OT) visited Miss X at Property 1 to assess her.
35. Miss X told the OT she was on the Council’s housing register, and she wished to move from Property 1 due to medical reasons. The OT advised Miss X that it would be unable to explore major adaptations at Property 1 if she planned to move houses. But the OT said it would complete a Health and Housing assessment for Miss X which would support her move to a new property.
36. The recommendations in the OT report included:

• Property Category - Mobility 3 to bid for adapted properties.
• Housing Requirements – Rehousing to be considered for a property with standard bath, kitchen on first floor, suitable for stairlift adaptations and a maximum of one to two steps by front door.
• Additional Considerations – Property 1 did not meet needs, unable to install bath, required two rooms to enable Miss X work from home.

37. The OT sent the report to the Council’s housing team.
38. In April and May, Miss X reported she experienced noise disturbance from some neighbours. The Council sent letters to residents about the reported incidents and the case was closed.
39. In May, the Council placed Miss X on priority Band A with eligibility to bid for two-bedroom adapted properties.
40. Miss X expressed her frustration about the difficulties she experienced with bidding for properties even with her Band A award. Miss X asked if the OT and the Council could provide her with some adaptations in Property 1 until she was able to secure and move to a suitable alternative property. Miss X said this was so she could access and use the kitchen and bathroom in Property 1 more easily.
41. In July, Miss X continued to report ongoing noise disturbance she experienced particularly from neighbouring garages to the Council. Miss X asked the Council to resolve the matter as the noise affected and worsened her health.
42. Miss X subsequently told the Council that since her July noise disturbance report, the problem had stopped and agreed for the case to be closed.
43. In August and October, Miss X chased the OT for updates about adaptations to Property 1. The OT said it could not provide Miss X with the requested adaptations through a disabled facilities grant (DFG) because she was on the housing register and she planned to move from Property 1. The OT said it was the responsibility of the Council’s housing team to support her move to a suitable accommodation which it had recommended. The Council said when an alternative property was found, it would ensure the property met the required recommendations made by the OT and was suitable to meet Miss X’s needs.

2025

44. In January, Miss X was shortlisted for a property she had bid for but was unsuccessful because the property was unsuitable to meet her housing needs.
45. In March and April, Miss X raised ongoing noise disturbance from neighbouring garages. The Council told Miss X it would open a case and contact Miss X to discuss the issue further.
46. In April, the Council sent a letter to the perpetrator about the reported incidents, and it advised against recurrence. The Council also informed Miss X about its contact with the perpetrator, it provided Miss X with diary sheets and asked her to complete them for a two-week period and return them to help with its investigation. The Council said if the diary sheets were not returned, it would assume the noise disturbance had stopped. Miss X did not complete or return the diary sheets, and the Council closed the case.
47. In May, Miss X bid for another property (Property 2) but she was unsuccessful because her bid position was number 275.
48. Miss X submitted a request to the Council for a discretionary direct offer for Property 2 outside its normal bidding process. Miss X asked the Council to consider her health and mobility needs, the ongoing issues with Property 1 and the fact Property 2 was close to her family and support networks. Miss X submitted various documents to support her discretionary direct let request.
49. The Council considered Miss X’s request and supporting documents. It found Miss X did not meet the criteria for an exceptional need to move or for discretionary let in line with its allocation policy. This was because its policy allowed for the Council to exercise discretion when it received a housing application and/or at the point of a property offer. The Council said these criteria did not apply in Miss X’s case and that:

• Miss X was unsuccessful with her bid for Property 2 (position 275) and therefore she was not offered the property.
• Miss X’s housing needs had been assessed by OT, and she was awarded the highest priority band (Band A). Miss X was also granted an extra room, so she was eligible to bid for two bedrooms and for adapted properties based on medical grounds.
• Property 2 was not an adapted property so it would not have met Miss X’s housing needs as recommended by OT.
• Miss X’s circumstances were not so unusual or remarkable to indicate that her housing needs were more urgent than many other applicants. The Council also said it had to ensure it applied its allocation policy in a fair and transparent way and to avoid discrimination.

50. The Council issued its refusal decision to Miss X. It advised her to continue to actively bid for suitable properties and advised her of other housing options.
51. In June, Miss X made another noise disturbance report from neighbouring property. The Council sent another letter to the perpetrator about the reported incidents and asked them to ensure no further noise disturbance was caused. It asked Miss X to complete diary sheets for a two-week period and return them to help with its investigation. The Council said if the diary sheets were not returned, it would assume the noise disturbance had stopped. Miss X did not complete or return the diary sheets.
52. In July, Miss X continued to report mechanical noise disturbance from neighbouring garages. She asked the Council for updates on its investigation into the matter. The Council advised Miss X it was in the process of investigating the alleged noise nuisance.

Miss X’s Complaints

53. Miss X made a complaint to the Council that Property 1 was unsuitable to meet her needs and its failure to provide her with adaptations in the property. Miss X also complained about the Council’s failure to properly deal with and resolve the alleged noise nuisance from neighbouring garages and its unfair refusal to shortlist her for direct let for Property 2. Miss X asked the Council to reconsider its Property 2 refusal decision.
54. The Council in its responses to Miss X’s complaint:

• acknowledged the challenges she was experiencing at Property 1, but it explained it could take several years to secure alternative accommodation due to lack of available properties within its borough.
• reiterated it properly considered her request for discretionary direct let for Property 2 and the reasons she did not meet the required criteria. The Council said there was no right to request a review of discretionary direct let decisions.
• advised Miss X to continue to actively bid for properties with her Band A priority award.

55. Miss X was dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to her complaint and the ongoing issues with Property 1. Miss X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
56. In response to our enquiries, the Council:

• confirmed Miss X had been actively bidding for properties and that most bids had been withdrawn by Miss X, while some had been unsuitable to meet her housing needs based on the OT recommendations.
• said no DFG application was submitted in Miss X’s case as she wanted to move from Property 1. The Council said it did not explore major adaptations in Property 1 because with DFGs, residents should have the intention to remain in the property for 5 years following any adaptation. The Council also explained the OT had recommended adaptations that would be required in a new home when Miss X moved from Property 1.
• provided records from June 2024 of the properties Miss X had bid for, bid positions and outcomes.
• stated it was currently developing its noise nuisance policy.

57. The Council provided the Ombudsman with additional information and evidence about the alleged noise nuisance issue. This included incident logs about the noise disturbance from neighbouring properties which Miss X reported to it, and how it dealt with the reports.

Analysis

Discretionary Shortlist

58. I am satisfied the Council properly considered Miss X’s request for discretionary shortlisting / direct let for Property 2 in line with its allocations scheme. The Council’s reasons not to exercise its discretion was not fault. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. Where the Council has followed the correct process in making its decision, the Ombudsman cannot question whether the decision is right or wrong.

Rehousing, DFG, Aids and Adaptations

59. The OT assessment completed in April 2024 found Property 1 was unsuitable to meet Miss X’s housing needs and as such Miss X should have moved to a suitable alternative property. Although Miss X had been unable to move from Property 1 since April 2024, I do not find fault by the Council. This is because there is no statutory duty for councils to provide applicants with social housing or to do so in a timely manner.
60. The council’s duty is to have and administer an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. In this case, the Council followed its allocations scheme when it assessed Miss X’s housing needs when she informed it Property 1 was unsuitable for her. The Council then increased and awarded Miss X the highest priority band (Band A) and it increased her eligibility to bid for two-bedroom adapted properties to meet her housing needs. This was not fault.
61. While I note Miss X had been actively bidding for properties since she was awarded priority Band A, the Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. Therefore, in this case, I find no fault by the Council for not rehousing Miss X as it had prioritised her housing needs in line with its allocations scheme and allocated properties to other applicants according to its published lettings scheme policy. This was not fault.
62. There was no evidence a DFG application was submitted to the Council, so there was no duty on the Council to fund major adaptations such as the stairlift and kitchen adaptations in Property 1. This is because Miss X would have been required to live in Property 1 for five years after the recommended major adaptations had been done. This was not fault.
63. Furthermore, I find the Council could not have provided Miss X with interim adaptations in Property 1 while she bid for alternative accommodation. This is because the OT report stated the Council was unable to install a bath in Property 1. This was not fault.

Alleged Noise Nuisance

64. When Miss X submitted alleged noise nuisance reports to the Council, it contacted and discussed the reports with Miss X, it wrote to the identified perpetrators to inform them of the reported concerns. The Council also provided Miss X with diary sheets in April 2025 and June 2025, it asked her to complete and return them so it could help with the Council’s investigation.
65. Although Miss X continued to make repeated reports to the Council, she did not return completed diary sheets to the Council as advised. I find this prevented the Council from establishing the patterns (times, frequency and duration) of the alleged noise disturbance to allow it to decide what steps to take in investigating the matter further. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council took reasonable steps to address Miss X’s concerns. This was not fault.

Back to top

Decision

66. I find no fault by the Council in how it dealt with Miss X’s case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman