Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s housing application after she notified it of a change of circumstances. There is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council dealt with her housing application when she notified it of a change of circumstances. In particular, she considers it:

• Failed to consider her son’s health conditions as it gave her a lower housing priority band. Mrs X says that the Council also refused to accept it had lowered her priority.
• Wrongly suspended her housing application while it dealt with her change of circumstances which meant she could not place bids on properties.
• Failed to follow its housing allocations policy as it will not allow her to bid on family accommodation and it did not contact her on an annual basis.
• Provided poor customer service when dealing with her change of circumstances and breached her confidentiality by discussing her application in a public area.
• Failed to obtain her consent to refer her application to an occupational therapist which breached her confidentiality.

2. Mrs X says that the Council’s actions have caused significant distress to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Some years ago, Mrs X applied for the Council’s housing register. The Council considered she qualified for the housing register and placed her in priority band 2.
7. In early 2025, Mrs X notified the Council of a change of circumstances as her son had suffered a serious injury. The Council suspended Mrs X’s housing application while it considered the change of circumstances. It reactivated Mrs X’s application three days later following a meeting with her. The Council referred Mrs X’s changes of circumstances to an occupational therapist for an assessment. The occupational therapist recommended Mrs X be able to bid on flats, bungalows and houses. The Council decided Mrs X should remain in band 2.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council about how it dealt with her change of circumstances notification. In response to her complaint, the Council acknowledged it should have offered Mrs X a private area to discuss her housing application when she attended its offices. It also said that its customer service had been poor. The Council apologised to Mrs X. The Council also confirmed Mrs X remained in band 2 and she was eligible for flats, bungalows or houses in accordance with the occupational therapist’s recommendations.
9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council lowered her priority. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint confirms she remains in band 2. Mrs X may consider the Council lowered her priority as it referred to her being in band 2 with no threatening risks. But the description does not change Mrs X’s priority within band 2 as that is decided by the date an applicant is awarded band 2 priority. There is no evidence the Council has lowered Mrs X’s priority. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council suspending her housing application while it dealt with her change of circumstances. Mrs X’s application was suspended for approximately three days. On balance, it is unlikely Mrs X would have made a successful bid during the short period of suspension. So, there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation into this aspect of her complaint.
11. Mrs X said the Council failed to follow its allocation policy as it did not contact her on an annual basis. We will not investigate this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint as any fault did not cause significant injustice to Mrs X as she remained on the housing register.
12. Mrs X also considers the Council did not follow its allocation policy which provides that households with family members over the age of 16 who have learning or physical disabilities will be eligible for family accommodation. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council confirmed Mrs X was eligible to bid on flats, bungalows or houses. So, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into this complaint.
13. The Council apologised to Mrs X for its poor customer service, including failing to offer a private area for discussing Mrs X’s housing application. We will not investigate this complaint as the Council’s apology is a proportionate remedy for the distress caused to Mrs X. It is also in accordance with our Guidance on Remedies.
14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council breaching her confidentiality by referring her housing application to an occupational therapist. Mrs X can make a complaint to the Information Commissioner if she considers the Council has wrongly disclosed personal information to a third party. We consider the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman