Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to accept her housing application onto the housing register. She says that her medical and mental health needs were not properly considered and she should be given priority to bid on 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 should have been given sufficient priority to qualify for the Council’s housing register. She submitted a new application in 2025 and the Council told her that she did not have sufficient priority to be on the register and that as a single applicant with one bedroom she was adequately housed and not overcrowded. She submitted medical evidence with her application and the Council carried out a medical assessment but told her that she did not meet the threshold for medical priority.
6. Ms X asked the Council to carry out a review of its decision. The Council carried out a review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996, although it referred to this as an ‘appeal’. The review outcome did not change the original decision on her case.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. 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.
9. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment or review which would suggest that Ms X should be accepted onto the housing register.

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 fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman