Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s lack of support with her housing because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s lack of support with her housing situation. She said the Council:
• ignored her initial housing register application so she had to reapply;
• delayed assessing her second application;
• awarded the wrong priority band and wrongly assessed the number of bedrooms she needed;
• ignored a request for interim accommodation in July 2025; and
• failed to address damp and mould in her property over several years.
2. Ms X said the Council’s failings meant she and her family remained in a property affected by damp and mould, which affected their health.
3. Ms X has since moved to private rented sector accommodation, which she cannot afford, following which the Council closed her housing register application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

10. Ms X said she applied to join the Council’s housing register in March 2023, but it did not process the application, so she reapplied in September 2023. The Council accepted her application and awarded band C in February 2024. It said she needed four bedrooms and was overcrowded by one bedroom.
11. In December 2024, Ms X asked for a review of her priority band. Council records state she provided medical evidence to show two of her children needed to have their own room due to their medical conditions. In February 2025, the Council awarded band B and said she needed five bedrooms.
12. Ms X said the Council advised her in July 2025 that she should look for private rented sector (PRS) accommodation because five-bedroom social housing was very rare. She also said, it promised to consider awarding band A but she heard nothing further about that.
13. Also in July 2025, Ms X complained. She said she had been waiting for rehousing over two years and that her current property was affected by damp and mould. In its complaint response, the Council set out the works done to address the damp and mould from 2023 onwards. It said an inspection in August 2025 showed the property needed to be properly ventilated and gave advice about this.
14. In her stage 2 complain, Ms X also referred to her request in July 2025 for interim accommodation, which she said had been ignored. In its response, the Council said a manager visited Ms X, following which they asked the relevant team to investigate signs of damp. However, this did not meet the threshold to arrange interim accommodation.
15. Council records state there was a professionals meeting in January 2026 at which the allocated social worker was asked to explain to Ms X that if she wanted to move to PRS she would need to give notice on her secure tenancy and that her housing register application was likely to be closed as she would no longer have a housing need.
16. Also in January 2026, Ms X applied for a discretionary housing payment (DHP) to assist with rent on a PRS property. This was refused on the basis the rent was £905 per month more than the maximum local housing allowance, which mean the tenancy was not affordable. The Council noted Ms X had a secure Council tenancy and it was more appropriate for her to seek a transfer or rehousing through the housing register. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of that decision.
17. In early February, the Council reassessed her housing register application. By this point, Ms X had moved to PRS. It decided she no longer had a housing need. That decision was upheld on review in April 2026.

My assessment

18. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about. In this case, Ms X complained in October 2025 about events from March 2023. There is no evidence she could not have complained earlier and no good reason to consider the period prior to October 2024.
19. We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about disrepair in her Council property. The action the Council took to address this was in its capacity as a registered social landlord, which is outside our remit.
20. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We can consider its decision-making process but, unless there was fault in that process, we cannot comment on the decision reached.
21. The Council awarded band B in February 2025 and increased the bedroom need to five, based on medical evidence to show two of the children needed to have their own room. This decision was in line with the Council’s published scheme and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
22. Ms X said the Council promised to consider awarding band A in July 2025 but did not issue a decision. I appreciate this was frustrating but there is no indication Ms X met the criteria for band A in July 2025, and therefore this fault did not cause sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
23. The Council’s decision in January 2026 reflected Ms X’s move to PRS. Although she was still one bedroom short, she was no longer in social housing, so did not meet the criteria for band C. This decision was therefore in line with the published scheme and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.
24. The Council visited Ms X following her request for interim accommodation in July 2025. It would be under a duty to arrange interim accommodation if it had reason to believe Ms X was homeless (on the grounds it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy her home), eligible for assistance and in priority need. The Council did not consider that threshold was met. Damp and mould would not usually make a property unsuitable to continue occupying as the expectation is that work would be done to address this. Further, I note an inspection in August 2025 did not identify damp and mould. Whilst its communication with Ms X at the time could have been clearer, Ms X did not miss out on accommodation the Council should have arranged for her so there is insufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
25. It was not fault for the Council to advise Ms X to consider PRS due to the long waiting time for social housing.
26. Ms X had the right to ask the Council to review its DHP decision and it was reasonable for her to have exercised that right. Further, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

27. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to investigate the parts of the complaint that wre not late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman