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. Miss X complained about the Council’s assessment of her housing application and its failure to award her with sufficient priority to successfully bid on vacancies 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
• 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 policy.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss x says she has only a low priority banding for her housing application even though her housing circumstances have been difficult for the past three years. She says her private landlord served two section 21 notices to quit in 2023 and 2024. She had to make homelessness applications but was only offered temporary accommodation in the private sector which she says she cannot accept. Her current home is unaffordable due to its size and has suffered from repair issues.
6. The Council says it considers her to be adequately housed and there are no active possession notices which would threaten her with homelessness at the time of her complaint. Miss X asked for a review of her application and this was submitted to a Welfare Panel in 2025. The Panel did not change the banding of her case and she asked for this decision to be reviewed independently. The further review was carried out by a neighbouring authority and it concluded that the decision complained with the allocations policy and her medical circumstances.
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 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. I have seen no evidence of fault which would suggest that Miss X should be placed in a higher banding.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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