Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase her priority banding and failed to urgently resolve her housing situation. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed to urgently resolve overcrowding in her property and ignored her personal circumstances, despite giving the Council advance notice of her children of different sexes approaching their teenage years.
2. Miss X says the situation has caused her anxiety and left her with a sense of hopelessness as she has nowhere else to turn. She says the family’s housing has impacted her children’s studies as they do not have enough space to focus.

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))
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X lives in a two-bedroom property with her husband and four children. Her four children consist of a boy and girl under 10 years of age and a boy and girl who are over 10 years old, but under 21.
8. In June 2025, Miss X complained to the Council that she had waited almost 10 years to be rehoused. She said she had sent supporting documents from her children’s schools and other agencies, but the Council refused to increase her banding. At the time, the Council had awarded Miss X Band 3 priority based on being overcrowded and eligible to bid on three-bedroom properties.
9. In the Council’s complaint responses, it considered whether it had correctly assessed Miss X’s banding. It considered Miss X’s complaint, her supporting documents and any new information provided. It decided that it had correctly awarded Band 3. It explained this was the highest banding that it could award under its Housing Allocations Scheme because the family was overcrowded and lacking one additional bedroom. It said Miss X’s supporting evidence provided important context about the pressures the family were facing, but it did not meet the threshold for the Council to award a higher banding based on exceptional welfare issues. Rather, the family’s housing needs would be resolved by addressing the overcrowding issue and moving to a three-bedroom property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating.
10. The Council explained Miss X could submit a change of circumstances form and submit any relevant evidence if her family experienced any significant changes. It explained it would then reassess her housing register application. But, it explained, under its current Housing Allocations Scheme, it could not award higher banding based on waiting time alone. This decision is in line with its Housing Allocations Scheme. The Ombudsman also recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Council explained to Miss X that this was the case for three-bedroom properties. It confirmed there were also families in higher bands and with longer wait times that were still waiting to successfully bid on such properties. We will not investigate this matter because there is not enough evidence of fault.
11. Regarding bedroom entitlement, in line with the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme, the Council considers it reasonable for Miss X’s two girls and two boys to both share a bedroom while they are under 21 years old. The Council accepts the family needs a three-bedroom property, but, as the family is not overcrowded by two or more bedrooms, there is no requirement to increase the banding. It has not denied Miss X priority under its Scheme but explained why it cannot award a higher banding. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to increase her priority banding. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman