Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a nomination to a registered social landlord because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained a nomination for social housing has not progressed due to disability discrimination. She said her priority on the Council’s housing register was removed and the Council had refused to assist with disabled adaptations prior to moving to the new property, as recommended by an occupational therapist. Ms X says Council failings mean she is living in housing that does not meet her needs longer than she should have to.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. In January 2024, the Council agreed Ms X needed rehousing as her current property could not be adapted to meet her needs. It awarded band A on its housing register.
6. In April 2025, the Council nominated Ms X for property A, an adapted property in a new development. The landlord was a registered social landlord. Ms X viewed the property in May 2025 and accepted it. An occupational therapist (OT) also viewed the property. The OT said the landlord needed to install an automated door opening system before Ms X moved in.
7. In July 2025, the landlord told the Council it had not been able to complete its own pre-signing-up checks with Ms X. A Council officer spoke to Ms X and the landlord to facilitate the completion of the necessary checks.
8. In its final complaint response, in October 2025, the Council said it had been in regular contact with the landlord for updates on the automated door opening system the landlord was installing.

My assessment

9. We have previously investigated complaints about the period to April 2025 so we will not consider that period further.
10. It appears there was a delay between May 2025 and at least July 2025 in the landlord completing its own checks before offering a tenancy. In correspondence with the Council, Ms X accepted its officer was helpful in facilitating those checks. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.
11. There is no evidence the landlord refused to make the adaptation the OT recommended. The Council cannot control how quickly those works are done, but it has said it is in regular contact with the landlord for updates. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.
12. We cannot investigate a complaint about the landlord because that it outside our remit. The Housing Ombudsman Service may be able to investigate a complaint about the landlord.
13. Ms X says she has lost her priority on the housing register. Whilst I have not seen any response from the Council about this or other evidence to show what happened, it is standard practice for housing register applications to be suspended when a nomination is being actively considered as is the case here. If the landlord does not offer a tenancy, I would expect Ms X’s housing register application to be reinstated. However, she will need to raise a formal complaint about this with the Council before we could consider investigating this aspect.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman