Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a housing application. This is mainly because there is not enough evidence of fault significantly disadvantaging Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her applications for social housing. She says she and her family remain in accommodation that affects one family member’s disability and where it is unsafe for that person to use the stairs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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)
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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X reports she and her partner have been applying to the Council for rehousing since 2022. Miss X complained to us in July 2025, so the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to any complaint about events before July 2024. I see no good reason preventing Miss X complaining to us sooner about those events.
9. In July 2024, the Council wrote to Miss X about a housing application she had recently made. The Council said if it did not receive medical evidence to support the application by 1 August 2024, it would close the application. The Council says it received nothing by then, so closed the application. It is unclear if the Council then wrote telling Miss X that. Anyway, Miss X supplied some medical evidence two weeks later. The Council then accepted Miss X’s family had some medical need to move and put the application in Band C on its housing register. So even if the Council did not write to Miss X when it closed the application, that in itself did not disadvantage Miss X significantly enough to warrant investigation as the Council put the application on the housing register soon after.
10. The Council wrote to Miss X on 11 September 2024 explaining her application was in Band C rather than a higher band, based on its policy and the information Miss X had supplied. The letter said Miss X had the right to ask the Council to review the decision. I have seen no evidence Miss X asked for a review.
11. The decision to give Band C priority appears properly reached. The Council considered information about Miss X’s family and its policy. It gave reasons for its decision. So, as paragraph 4 explained, I cannot criticise the decision although Miss X can disagree with the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making for us to investigate. If Miss X disagreed with the priority the Council had given to the household’s medical circumstances, she could reasonably have asked for a review. I shall not investigate the decision about Band C priority.
12. Miss X’s complaint to us implied the applications might have been disadvantaged because the Council thought she, and perhaps her partner, had not lived in the Council’s area long enough. That was not an issue on any of the complaints in the time period I have considered.
13. The Council has not rehoused Miss X’s family yet. It has no duty to do so within any particular time, or at all. Its duty here is just to consider Miss X with appropriate priority for vacant social housing in line with the Council’s allocations scheme. The evidence suggests it has done that. Miss X’s lack of success so far seems to be because demand for social housing significantly outstrips supply, not because of fault by the Council.
14. Miss X applied again in April 2025. The Council assessed that application and sent its decision in August 2025. That was after Miss X’s complaints to the Council and to us about her housing. So the restriction in paragraph 5 applies to any complaint about the Council’s actions on this application. I see no good reason why Miss X should not give the Council a reasonable opportunity to deal with any such complaint, through the housing review procedure or the complaint procedure, before bringing any complaint about this point to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Part of the complaint is late without good enough reason to investigate it now. The Council’s closure of the application in August 2024 did not disadvantage Miss X significantly enough for us to investigate. The Council properly reached its decision to give Band C priority and Miss X did not use her right to ask for a review of that decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman