Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement. Her housing application has been reassessed and awarded with Band 1 priority since the date she submitted her application. We cannot comment on the fraud investigation as this is ongoing.

The complaint

1. Summary: Ms X complained about the length time it has taken for the Council to allocate a home to her, despite her living in overcrowded accommodation with her children. Ms X also states that she was offered a home through the Council’s bidding system, but the option was withdrawn and no alternative was provided by the Council. Ms X alleged that the ongoing fraud case against her was an act of malice and retaliation from previous complaints made by her.

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.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X submitted her housing application in Feburary 2024, which was reviewed and registered by the Council in June 2024.
6. She subsequently requested a review in relation to the decision of awarding her Band 3 on the housing register, and later submitted a number of documents to support her review.
7. It was explained to Ms X that the Council needed more information from the District Officer who manages her address, and the Council wrote to Ms X in November to update her on the status of her review.
8. In December 2024, Ms X made a complained about this approach, and it was agreed to re-open the review so that her housing assessment could progress.
9. In April 2025, following the reassessment of her case, Ms X was informed that the decision was overturned and her housing application has been registed for a 3-bedroom property in Band 1, with the priority start date from the day she submitted the application under the Council’s scheme of allocation.
10. The evidence suggests that the Council assessed the medical information provided by Ms X, which was sent to the Council’s medical advisors. The group of independent medical professionals assessed that no medical priority be awarded. The Council’s decision for Band 1 priority was decided in April 2025.
11. 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.
12. We may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
13. In respect of the fraud investigation, we cannot comment on this as this is an ongoing investigation and we cannot investigate the substantive issues. There was no duty to offer Ms X another proeprty until the investigatio is concluded.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman