Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing allocation and disrepair in her social rented home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation into her housing assessment. We cannot investigate complaints about disrepair in social housing properties which outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her living conditions. She states she is living in severe overcrowding and unsafe conditions. She says she currently lives in a 1-bedroom council rented flat with her 3 daughters aged, 17,15 and 9, and has experienced regular boiler failures, reoccurring mould, damp and disrepair throughout the property.
2. Miss X claims she was subject to discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, as she was unknowingly removed from the housing register in 2013 without the right to appeal, despite her rent officer being aware of her poor mental health.
3. Miss X says that the Council have failed to act in accordance with its own policies causing harm to her and her children. She states that she suffers from multiple disabilities, including neurodiversity, anxiety, and depression, and that the Council’s failings has resulted in the deterioration of the health of her and her children, including emotional and psychological trauma stemming from their living conditions.
   
   In short Miss X complains of the Council’s handling of:
1. Severe overcrowding
2. Unsafe living conditions and disrepair
3. Impact on her and her children’s health and wellbeing
4. Disability Discrimination and Historical failings
5. Bidding process inconsistencies and systemic confusion

4. Miss X seeks immediate rehousing to a safe, quiet and appropriately sized property, urgent review of her prioritisation award and financial compensation for prolonged emotional distress, health deterioration and trauma caused by housing conditions and negligent handing of repairs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
• We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
• We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the Complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X approached the Council on 3 March 2025 with a Stage 1 Complaint. She reported several disrepair issues including, a complaint about ‘no hot water and heating’. The Council formally responded to this complaint on 31 October 2025, they confirmed that the water and heating issues were attended to on 4 March 2025 and completely resolved on 18 March 2025.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s comapkints about repairs matetrs because she is a social housing tennat and we have had no jurisdiction to investigate the actions of social housing landlords since 2013.
10. On 18 June 2025, Miss X submitted and additional Stage 1 Complaint requesting for urgent rehousing and compensation due to severe overcrowding, disrepair and harm to mental health. In their Stage 1 Response, the Council addressed Miss X’s reference to her medical needs and overcrowding. They confirmed that these factors resulted in her being awarded priority Band B1 on 30 November 2021 in accordance with their Allocation Scheme. The Council explained that due to extremely high demand for social housing and shortage of housing stock, many who have been awarded priority are waiting to be rehoused. The lack of suitable housing and high demand is a matter that is largely outside of the Council’s control, and it is unlikely that an investigation would result in a better outcome for Miss X.
11. On 24 March 2025, the Council asked Miss X to complete a medical form due to claims that her health had deteriorated. She has not provided evidence of ‘Medical or Welfare Grounds’ that would award her Band A priority or any additional evidence of her medical conditions that would permit her registration date to be backdated. Therefore, it is unlikely that an investigation would find fault with the Council’s decision.
12. If Miss X submits new medical evidnce at any time she can ask for it to be assessed as a change in her circumstnaces. She can ask the Council to carry out a review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 if it does not accept th eevidnece or if it does not change her priority.
13. Miss X claims she was subject to discrimination, contrary to the Equality Act 2010, as she was unknowingly removed from the housing register in 2013 without the right to appeal, despite her rent officer being aware of her poor mental health. We cannot investigate this part of the complaint as this is time-barred and out of jurisdiction.
14. Miss X says that the bidding process consists of inconsistencies and systemic confusion, stating that one week she is ranked high and then low. It is unlikely that an investigation would find fault here as rankings often change during a bidding cycle because other applicants with higher priority (more points or a higher band) placed their bids in the same cycle closed. The Council stated that Miss X has previously been shortlisted for properties, but she requested that these offers do not proceed. They also recommended Miss X consider mutual exchange as this has proven a faster way of moving for many households.
15. The Council explained that bids fluctuate depending on factors such as, number of bidders, location and type of property. Miss X was also informed that she occasionally bid for properties that she was not eligible for and reminded her that she was eligible for three-bedroom flats, houses and maisonettes.
16. Miss X says that she should be entitled to a 4-bedroom property due to her 15-year-old daughter turning 16. The Council informed her that she could not bid for 4-bedroom properties until her 15-year-old daughter turned 16, in line with the Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Allocations Scheme bedroom criteria.
17. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Miss X’s housing allocation and disrepair in her social rented home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation into her housing assessment. We cannot investigate complaints about disrepair in social housing properties which outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman