Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s priority on the Council’s housing register. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to award her household with the appropriate priority on its housing register so that she can be rehoused urgently. Ms X said as a result she and her children have been living for too long in unsuitable accommodation which is worsening their mental and physical health.

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’.
3. 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 if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Housing allocations

6. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
7. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
8. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

My findings

9. Ms X complained to the Council that it wrongly decided her household did not have a medical priority on the housing register. Ms X said not only was their accommodation not suitable on medical grounds, but they were also overcrowded.
10. The Council considered Ms X’s concerns through both stages of its complaints process and by reviewing its banding decision in September 2025 and then again in November 2025 in response to new information provided.
11. 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 or if we agree or disagree with it. Instead, we look at the processes councils follow to make their decisions. If we consider a council has followed those processes correctly, we cannot question it.
12. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information provided by Ms X and its own allocations policy. It explained the reasons for its decision in relation to overcrowding and medical needs. It carried out several reviews into its original decision, at Ms X’s request. Through the reviews and complaints process, the original decision was considered by several senior staff members. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process that would justify further investigation.
13. The Council did accept that it delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint and this happened because her stage two complaint was “missed”. The Council apologised for this and made an improvement to its service to prevent recurrence of this fault in future. This is appropriate action to remedy any injustice caused and so we will not investigate the complaint handling delay further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation and because the Council has already taken appropriate action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman