Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his housing application. He says the Council failed to properly consider his medical conditions and the challenges he faced in his current housing situation, causing him considerable distress and difficulty. He believes that a higher banding would better acknowledge the impact of his health issues and improve his chances of securing a more suitable and stable home.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register on 24 December 2024. He was placed in Band C and was eligible to bid for 1-bedroom properties.
6. Mr X requested a review of his banding allocation on 28 February 2025. He said that his current band did not accurately reflect the severity of his circumstances and the urgent need for more suitable accommodation, due to his medical conditions and the challenges he faced in his current living situation.
7. Mr X said that a higher banding would better acknowledge the impact of his health issues and improve his chances of securing a more suitable and stable home.
8. The Council closed Mr X’s review request as it was not sent within 21 days of the decision being made on his application, in accordance with its Housing Allocation Scheme.
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. The evidence shows that the Council’s letter in response to Mr X’s Housing Register Application Review advised him to complete a change of circumstances application if his circumstances had changed.
11. There is no evidence that Mr X submitted a change of circumstances application alongside new medical evidence for the Council’s consideration. We see no evidence of fault to justify an investigation, and we will not uphold a complaint if the Council has followed proper procedures, relevant legislation and guidance and taken account of all the information provided.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman