Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the priority band awarded on the housing register because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal to award band 1 on its housing register. She said this meant her family is left in unsafe and unsuitable accommodation, which is causing stress.
2. Ms X also complained the Council failed to take a homelessness application form her partner, Mr Y. That complaint is being considered separately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X applied to join the Council’s housing register. She asked it to include her partner, Mr Y, in her household, although he is not currently living with her. She said Mr Y and her son, Z, both need their own bedrooms.
7. Initially, the Council said she was not eligible to join the housing register. After she provided additional information, it accepted the application and awarded band 3. Ms X asked for a review and provided further information. This included GP medical summaries and a form setting out the care and support Ms X provides to Mr Y. Ms X said there was no formal care and support plan in place. On review, in September 2025, the Council awarded band 2 (medical).
8. Ms X considered she should be in band 1 and complained. The Council investigated its handling of her application. It accepted there was some initial confusion about whether it would include Mr Y in the application and whether it had considered his medical needs, for which it apologised. It confirmed band 2 was appropriate and said this recognised the family’s significant but not emergency-level need to move.

My assessment

9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider the decision-making process but, unless we find fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached. The law says councils must allocated social housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
10. The Council considered the information Ms X provided at each stage of the process and changed its view to reflect this. Its decision letters and complaint responses show it considered its published scheme and explained the reasons for its decisions. There was no undue delay in its decision-making. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.
11. The Council’s apology is sufficient to remedy the initial confusion about whether Mr Y was accepted as part of the household.
12. Ms X says Mr Y is not able to use medical equipment needed overnight because he cannot live with her and is currently of no fixed abode. This may mean Mr Y is legally homeless. If the Council accepts a homelessness duty to Mr Y, that may affect the family’s housing register application. As at October 2025, which was when the Council issued its final complaint response in relation to the priority band complaint, there was no active homelessness application.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman