Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says that he should have qualified for Band 1 priority because of his health and accommodation issues, instead he was awarded Band 2. He says the review of the decision failed to advise him of any further appeal rights.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council failed to give his housing application sufficient priority. He says his current private-rented accommodation is in disrepair and the landlord is threatening to remove him. He says his health is suffering as a result and he should have Band 1 priority.
6. The Council reviewed his application under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6 in February 2025. It concluded that he did not meet the threshold for Band 1 under its allocations policy. There is no evidence to suggest that the review was not carried out according to the government guidance. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. Mr X also says that he was not given an opportunity to appeal against the review decision. There is no statutory right of appeal against a review under s.166A of Part 3 of the Act. The applicant can only seek a judicial review or complain to the Ombudsman in these cases which is the advice the Council gave to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman