Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s priority band on the Council’s housing register. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault that would justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his medical need to be rehoused or his risk of being harassed when it decided his priority band on the housing register. Mr X says as a result he has been left at risk of harm and caused frustration and distress.

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 it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was awarded Band 5 on the Council’s housing register, which is its lowest priority band.
6. Mr X asked the Council to review his banding in April 2025. He said he had been threatened with violence and had mental health conditions and so needed a move more urgently.
7. Mr X said he provided evidence regarding the risk of violence and harassment, along with his review request, but the Council said it never received it. The Council confirmed Mr X provided evidence regarding several medical conditions.
8. The Council carried out its review and decided its award of Band 5 was correct. It explained its reasons in line with its allocations policy.
9. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision. The Council did not uphold his complaints. It explained through its complaint responses in further detail why it did not agree that his medical needs were such that he needed a move to a higher priority band. Regarding any threats of violence, or changes in his medical needs, the Council said Mr X could send the Council evidence of this and it would consider the request again.
10. Mr X said the Council failed to consider that he faced harassment and threats of violence in its banding review decision. However Mr X did not provide evidence regarding these issues. It is Mr X’s responsibility to provide relevant evidence when asking the Council to carry out a review. Therefore there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint further. The Council explained its decision in line with its allocations policy and so we cannot criticise it.
11. If Mr X has evidence regarding any risk of harm posed to him, it is open to Mr X to provide the Council with this and ask the Council to carry out another review.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman