Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about Ms X’s priority on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement. We will not investigate a complaint about whether her current property was suitable, when offered, because it was reasonable for Ms X to have exercised her rights of review and appeal when the offer was made and the homelessness duty ended.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce her priority on its housing register because she was no longer homeless. She said she was forced to accept her current tenancy as she would otherwise have been homeless and was not told it was a permanent offer. She said the property is unsuitable due to poor insulation and because it is affected by damp and mould, which is affecting her child’s health. She is also overcrowded by one bedroom. In addition, she says she is struggling to adequately heat the property due to the high costs of electric and being on a low income. She says the Council’s decision to reduce her priority band means she will remain in unsuitable housing for longer.

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.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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
• it was reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. In August 2024, the Council offered a one bedroom property to Ms X to discharge its homelessness duty. It explained she could ask for a review of its decision to end the duty and of the suitability of the offer. Ms X accepted the property and did not ask for a review.
8. In January 2025, she asked the Council to change her address on its housing register. Its housing register team said it had not been told she had accepted a tenancy in 2024 and was no longer homeless. It decided to reduce her priority on its housing register from band 3 to band 4.
9. Ms X asked for a review of the decision to change her priority band. The Council carried out a review but upheld the original decision. It explained she was entitled to remain on the housing register because she was overcrowded by one bedroom and band 4 priority reflected that. It said she should refer her concerns about the property’s condition to her landlord and provided a link to its private lettings team for her to contact if the landlord did not address the disrepair.

My assessment

10. The Council wrote to Ms X in August 2024 to explain it was ending its homelessness duty because she had accepted a tenancy that would last at least 12 months. It explained its reasons for deciding the property was suitable, and although it did not say anything about the number of bedrooms, it did say Ms X could ask for a review of the suitability of the property offered. It was reasonable for Ms X to use her rights of review and appeal if she did not consider the property offered was suitable due to the number of bedrooms.
11. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s priority band decision was correct. Unless we find fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
12. When it made its original decision and on review, the Council considered the information Ms X provided and its published allocation scheme. It explained its reasons for deciding band 4 was appropriate and that decision was in line with its scheme. It made its decisions without undue delay. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement.
13. In its review decision, the Council explained Ms X could contact its private sector housing team of her landlord had not addressed the damp and mould. The Council also told us it had suggested Ms X ask for help from the local Citizen’s Advice Bureau in relation to debt relating to high electricity costs. This was appropriate advice for the Council to give.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate the complaint about Ms X’s priority on the Council’s housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our involvement. We will not investigate a complaint about whether her current property was suitable, when offered, because it was reasonable for Ms X to have exercised her rights of review and appeal when the offer was made and the homelessness duty ended.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman