Summary: Mrs X complained about the length of time she has been waiting to be rehoused and believed she was overlooked for a property which may have been suitable for her needs. We find no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the length of time she has been waiting to be rehoused and believes she was overlooked for a property that may have been suitable for her needs.
2. She says that remaining in her current property has had a negative impact on her and her children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and legislation

The published scheme

7. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

8. The Council allocates social housing by matching applicants on its housing register to available properties.
9. Applicants who qualify for the housing register are placed into one of four priority bands, ranging from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority).
10. The band awarded reflects the applicant’s assessed housing need. Applicants in higher bands have a greater level of need and are prioritised accordingly when properties become available.

Social housing availability

11. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
12. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman 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.

What happened

13. Miss X is a secure tenant of a Council property. In 2023, she applied for a transfer, stating her current accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds. The Council assessed her application and placed her in Band 2. It also identified specific requirements for any future property, including that it should not be located adjacent to a busy road.
14. In September 2024, the Council reviewed further medical evidence provided by Miss X and increased her priority to Band 1. The restriction relating to properties near busy roads remained in place. The Council advised Miss X she could contact it if she disagreed with the medical recommendations.
15. In May 2025, Miss X contacted the Council to confirm, following an earlier telephone discussion, that she was willing to consider properties located near busy roads. She explained she believed this restriction was limiting her rehousing prospects and said she would take responsibility for any adaptations needed to make such a property suitable.
16. On the same day, the Council confirmed it had recorded that Miss X was willing to consider properties near busy roads and noted her intention to mitigate any associated risks, for example by installing a fence.
17. In July 2025, Miss X made a complaint to the Council about the time she had been waiting to be rehoused. She asked why there had been a delay and sought reassurance that she was being appropriately prioritised and not overlooked.
18. The Council responded, acknowledging the impact the delay was having. It explained that although the average waiting time for rehousing was around nine months, this could be longer where applicants had specific requirements. It confirmed that since September 2024, all properties had been allocated to Band 1 applicants with an earlier effective date than Miss X. It also identified one property (Property A) that had been allocated to a Band 2 applicant, explaining Miss X had not been considered because, at that time, the property did not meet her medical requirement relating to busy roads.
19. Miss X escalated her complaint. She said she had already informed the Council she was willing to consider properties near busy roads and believed she had been overlooked when Property A was allocated to an applicant in a lower band.
20. In its final response, the Council explained that when Property A became available, she was not matched because Miss X’s application included the restriction relating to busy roads. It said her willingness to consider such properties was only confirmed afterwards, and it had since updated her application to reflect this change.
21. Since bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss X has been rehoused in suitable accommodation.
22. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed Property A had been offered in March 2025, before Miss X notified it of her willingness to consider properties near busy roads.
23. The Council also provided evidence of all properties allocated since Miss X was awarded Band 1 priority. This shows that properties were either allocated to applicants with an earlier effective date than Miss X or did not meet her assessed housing requirements. The Council confirmed that no property was considered unsuitable for Miss X solely because it was located near a busy road.

My findings

24. When the Council awarded Miss X Band 2, and later Band 1, it informed her of the medical recommendations attached to her application and invited her to contact it if she disagreed with them.
25. Miss X did so in May 2025, when she confirmed she was willing to consider properties near busy roads. The Council updated its records to reflect this change.
26. The evidence shows that, at the time Property A was allocated, Miss X’s application still included a restriction excluding properties near busy roads. The Council therefore acted in line with the information it held at that time when it did not consider her for that property.
27. The evidence also shows that, following her placement in Band 1, properties were allocated to applicants with an earlier effective date. There is no evidence Miss X was overlooked or that the Council departed from its published allocations scheme.
28. I recognise the uncertainty and distress caused by delays in rehousing. However, based on the evidence available, I find no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman