Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled an application for a housing transfer. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council and other parts of the complaint have not caused significant injustice to Mr X. The Information Commissioner’s Office is best placed to deal with Mr X’s complaint about a data breach.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to allocate a property that he bid on. He complains the Council refused to offer him a direct match even though he is in a priority band. Mr X says this is causing extreme anxiety and distress. He wants the Council to allocate him a bungalow, make a financial payment and admit its failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council awarded Mr X priority band 2 on the housing register in November 2025. Mr X bid on a property he liked and was suitable for him. He said the Council did not allocate it to him and instead it offered the property to someone else.
9. The Council explained to Mr X it allocated the property to some else in line with its allocations priority framework. We are unlikely to find fault with how the Council decided to allocate the property.
10. Mr X believed he should be in a higher priority band because of his medical needs. In January 2026 Mr X had an assessment of his health and welfare needs. The Council considered the assessment and reviewed its decision. It placed Mr X in priority band 1. I understand Mr X believes he was in the wrong band for 10 weeks, however I am satisfied the Council assessed his priority banding based on the evidence it held at the time. There was no fault in how it reached its decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
11. Mr X asked the Council to directly offer him a property. The Council refused Mr X’s request. It told him he did not meet the criteria for a direct offer. The Council decided Mr X’s circumstances did not meet that criteria because there was no evidence he was at immediate risk of harm. I am satisfied the Council considered information from police when it reached that decision and we are unlikely to find fault.
12. Mr X told the Council he needs a ground floor property with a garden and private areas. The Council told Mr X there was no evidence to support this. Mr X sent the Council a letter from his doctor to support his request.
13. The Council accepted Mr X’s evidence and advised him to continue to bid on suitable properties. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council made its decision and therefore cannot question the outcome. I understand Mr X believes the Council should have accepted his property requirements sooner, but the Council made its decisions about the suitability of properties and Mr X’s needs based on the information it had at the time.
14. Mr X bid on a property that he says was wrongly advertised. I understand Mr X was disappointed but the property was not suitable and he was still able to bid on other properties. Therefore any error in the advert did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.
15. The Council told Mr X he was sending too many emails and making unreasonable demands on Council staff. It decided to limit his contact to once per week. The Council was entitled to do this. Mr X disagreed and he was concerned it would delay a property allocation. The Council has a policy about unreasonable behaviour and it acted in line with its policy. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision to limit contact from Mr X.

Mr X further complained that the Council shared his information with other teams and alleges that it breached data protection laws. Mr X can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he is concerned about how the Council handled his personal data as this is the appropriate body to consider complaints about these matters.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council and other parts of the complaint have not caused significant injustice to Mr X. The Information Commissioner’s Officer is best placed to deal with complaints about data breaches.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman