Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase her priority banding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council refused to increase her banding after telling it about a change of circumstances. She says the Council failed to provide any assistance despite providing evidence of her serious medical conditions and deteriorating health. Miss X complains the Council’s lack of support has worsened her situation and placed her at risk.

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, 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))

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In June 2024, Miss X sent the Council a change of circumstances form. She said her current property was causing or worsening her medical conditions. At the time, the Council had awarded Miss X Band 4 priority under its Housing Allocations Scheme.
7. In March 2025, the Council reviewed Miss X’s priority banding. The Council decided to uphold its decision that Band 4 was the highest banding it could award. This was because Miss X did not have a housing need in line with its Housing Allocations Scheme. The Council gave clear reasons with reference to the evidence provided and in line with is Allocations Scheme. It explained Miss X’s evidence and information:

• did not show Miss X’s current property was worsening her medical conditions or directly contributing to an increased risk of serious ill health; and,
• did not include any recent medical evidence (or other relevant evidence) confirming any antisocial behaviour by her neighbour was impacting Miss X’s medical condition or health. The Council said it would consider Miss X’s circumstances again if she provided a report or update from her landlord outlining any ongoing issues.

8. These decisions are in line with the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme. The Council gave Miss X clear reasons as to why Band 4 was the highest banding it could award after reviewing all information and evidence available to it. It has not denied Miss X priority under its Scheme, but explained why it cannot award a higher banding. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
9. As the Council’s review decision did not change the outcome, I consider any delay in it completing this did not cause significant injustice. Therefore, I will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase her priority banding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman