Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from the Council’s changes in Miss X’s housing priority which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council changing her banding priority from band B in 2024 to Band A and then changing it back to Band B ten weeks later. She says she should have been left in the higher banding and disagrees with the Council’s explanation.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered 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. Miss X says her housing application priority was changed twice by the Council in three months. She did not complain when it was changed to Band 1 from Band 2 but asked for an explanation when the propriety was changed back to Band 2.
6. The Council says the priority was changed when it considered that she met the Band 1 requirements because she said she was statutory overcrowded. When the Council later assessed her claim in detail it decided that the property had a separate living room which should be taken into account as sleeping accommodation under its allocations policy and under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985 schedule on statutory overcrowding.
7. The Council changed Miss X’s priority back to Band 2 on reviewing her case. Although the change in banding was either incorrect or based on incorrect information, Miss X has not suffered any significant injustice by having her priority revert to its original assessment. If she had made any successful bids and been made an offer it is likely that the verification procedure would have revealed the inconsistency when her application was checked.
8. If Miss X had received an allocation under Band 1 when she did not meet the criteria for this priority this would have caused injustice to other applicants who were correctly placed in Band 1.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from the Council’s changes in Miss X’s housing priority which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman