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

The complaint

1. Mr X complained he had received inconsistent information from the Council about his housing register application. He also disagrees with the Council’s decision about the type of property he needs.

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))

3. We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Mr X, who has a disability and lives with a relative, applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council assessed his application and awarded band B in March 2024, based on overcrowding.
7. Subsequently, the Council’s Allocations and Tenancy Management Panel reviewed a management report dated February 2025 with a firm recommendation that Mr X needed urgent rehousing. Based on this, it awarded band A, effective from 30 September 2025 (the date of the panel decision). It said 2 bedroom flats or maisonettes would be suitable.
8. Mr X was unhappy with the Panel outcome. He said he needed housing on one floor and also asked the Council to make a direct offer. The Council explained it prioritised bungalows for those with a medical need for ground floor, single level housing. It advised him to make an application for medical rehousing. It also explained it could not make a direct offer because other households, with a similar urgent need to move had been waiting longer. It noted the effective date for band 2 should be February 2025, the date of the firm recommendation for urgent rehousing and corrected its records to that effect.
9. Mr X made an application for medical rehousing. The Council accepted his application. As a result, he was awarded band A medical and the effective date was changed to February 2024, in line with the Council’s allocations scheme. It confirmed Mr X could now bid for a bungalow.

My assessment

10. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. The law says councils must allocate housing in line with their published allocations scheme.
11. The evidence shows the Council considered all relevant information and its allocations scheme at each decision point. It wrote to him with its decision and explained its reasons. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation.
12. The effective date on Mr X’s application was wrongly set at September 2025, when the panel awarded band A. This was corrected within two weeks. Mr X did not suffer a sufficient injustice to justify investigating this aspect further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr 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