Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing allocation case. She alleges that the Council has failed to follow lawful procedures, has acted unreasonably and also failed to consider critical medical and welfare evidence in deciding her family’s priority band. She says she was awarded Band A on her social landlords transfer scheme and the Council should do the same.
   
   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 investigation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 scheme.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The key issues that Miss X raised relate to the decision on her housing priority banding. On 18 August 2025 Miss X complained to the Council that she was extremely concerned and disappointed that despite all the evidence she had submitted, she had been awarded Band B. She explained that her housing association landlord had awarded her Band A on its own transfer scheme but that the Council’s housing register had not given her the same banding.
6. On 8 September 2025, the Council provided a comprehensive Stage 1 Response: explaining that the medical evidence provided by Miss X had determined that Band B should be awarded and also an explanation was provided that Councils and social housing providers had their own allocations policies which would explain the different banding awarded by the Council. Council allocations schemes have to fall within the requirements of the Housing Act 1996 and the Localism Act 2011.
7. On 17 September 2025 Miss X emailed the Council stating she wished to escalate her complaint to Stage 2. She requested an urgent review of her housing application for reconsideration for Band A as several critical points had been omitted from the Stage 1 complaint response.
8. The Council’s records show it assessed Miss X’s circumstances including the medical information that Miss X had provided and explained why it considered she was adequately housed. Miss X does not meet the high threshold for Band A which for medical cases concerns life-threatening needs. Miss X’s circumstances were considered by the Council’s medical advisor and an allocations panel.
9. 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.
10. We may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or 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. Because the substance of the complaint is essentially a challenge to the Council’s allocations priority assessment, it is reasonable to expect Miss X to provide the Council with any updated medical evidence and ask for a fresh reassessment. If she meets the medical criteria she may be re-assessed.
11. Miss X also expressed concerns that a former partner may be aware of her current location and needs to move. If she has evidence of this she would need to make a homelessness application because the normal allocations process cannot provide an urgent move from the area.
12. Final decision

We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman