Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. She applied to the Council for a transfer from her current home due to medical reasons affected by a neighbour smoking on her balcony and a dispute with her neighbour over this. She says he needs to move urgently and the Council told her she does not qualify for the housing register.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. I have also considered the Council’s housing allocations policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says she needs to transfer from her existing Council home because she has chest problems which are exacerbated by her neighbour smoking on the outside balcony. This has led to a neighbour dispute which she believes is also affecting her health.
6. Ms X asked the Council to add her application to the housing register but it rejected her application because it said she does not have sufficient priority. She asked the Council to review the decision in April 2025. The Council did not process the non -statutory review with 56 days which is the guidance for this type of review. She made a formal complaint about the situation generally in July 2025 and the Council did not uphold this and told her to await the review decision.
7. The review was not completed until February 2026 which far exceeds the timescale for completion. However, the outcome of the review was that her priority was unchanged from the original assessment as she did not meet the threshold for medical or welfare priority. The Council told her that she would need to resolve her neighbour dispute by engaging with the housing management team and this did not affect the suitability of her current accommodation.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. In this case the delay in the review did not affect outcome of Ms X’s application. We 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. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice caused by fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman