Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s housing register review decision because it did not explain the reasons it decided the criteria for a gold band award was not met. Ms X said this caused stress and uncertainty and she considers the Council has not properly considered its published allocations scheme.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

(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. The Council awarded Ms X silver band on its housing register in November 2024. Ms X said she asked it to award gold band in July 2025 on the grounds the household had four silver level needs. These needs were that:
• the household was short of one bedroom;
• a household member has a medical condition affected by their housing;
• the health visitor had said their child had a welfare need to move; and
• the household was sharing a bathroom and kitchen with others.
6. The Council reassessed the application but decided silver band remained appropriate. Ms X sent two emails asking the Council to explain its reasons. In its responses the Council referred to two paragraphs of the published allocations scheme, neither of which applied to this application.
7. Ms X asked for a review of the decision. The Council issued a review decision the same day. It said the family did not meet the criteria for a gold band award. However, to recognise the family’s difficult living circumstances, it awarded an additional silver welfare and silver medical awards. It explained paragraph 22.4 of its scheme says if applicants with dependent children are sharing with family and friends, this takes precedence over any lack of bedroom requirements.
8. Ms X complained. The Council said it was satisfied it had followed the correct process when carrying out the review and there were no grounds for a further review of the banding.

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 its decision-making process but, unless there was fault in its decision-making, we cannot comment on the decision(s) reached. The law says the Council must allocate social housing in line with its published scheme.
10. The Council initially awarded a silver band based on the fact Ms X’s household is sharing housing with “friends or family”. Based on the evidence provided, it did not make awards for medical, welfare or overcrowding. It agreed they needed two bedrooms.
11. On review, the Council made further awards. This means Ms X had three silver level awards: sharing facilities, medical and welfare. The Council explained its scheme said sharing facilities took precedence over lacking bedrooms. This means Ms X was not entitled to an award for sharing facilities and an award for lacking one bedroom. Since the Council had not accepted four silver level needs, it did not agree the criteria for a gold band award was met.
12. The records show the Council considered the information provided and its published allocations scheme at each decision stage. It explained its reasons and made its decisions without undue delay. Whilst it could have explained its reasons for not awarding gold band on review more clearly, there is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making process causing sufficient injustice to justify investigating further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman