Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to rehouse him because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to rehouse him, despite him providing evidence of a cancer diagnosis and evidence he cannot manage stairs to his current property. As a result, Mr X said he remains in unsuitable housing.

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))

3. We 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. In January 2025, Mr X asked the Council to rehouse him, based on his recent cancer diagnosis. He said he was struggling with the stairs to his flat, which is on the first floor in a building with no lift. He provided a hospital letter confirming his diagnosis. The Council considered the medical evidence but decided the threshold for medical priority had not been met. It said Mr X could ask for a review of its decision of he disagreed with it.
7. Mr X contacted the Council to explain an occupational therapist (OT) had completed a housing assessment the previous week. The Council did not have sight of this when it made its decision.
8. The OT sent their report to the Council on 18 March 2025, a week after the Council’s decision. The Council considered the report and decided Mr X had a moderate need to move on medical grounds. It awarded band 2 on its housing register and set out the type of property Mr X needed.

My assessment

9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decisions were correct. We consider the decision-making process. Unless there was fault in the decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decisions reached. The law says councils must allocate social housing in line with their published allocation scheme.
10. At each decision point, the Council considered the evidence it had and its allocation scheme. It set out the reasons for its decision and made its decision without undue delay. When it made the first decision, it did not have evidence to show a medical need in relation to managing stairs, but this was provided by the OT report. After considering the OT report, the Council exercised discretion to award band 2 because Mr X had more than one band 3 needs. This means Mr X now has higher priority when bidding on social housing through the Council’s housing register.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify further investigation. In any case, if Mr X disagreed with the decision to award band 2, he had the right to ask for a review and it was reasonable for him to exercise that right.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman