Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from its decision to change the priority of Mr X’s application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to remove 150 points without good reason and delaying his review request by over a month. He wants the Council to re-instate his previous 150 points awarded for adverse living conditions which were withdrawn in January 2025.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(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 the Council’s housing register and in 2024 was awarded 150 points on the allocations priority scheme for housing and health issues. In January 2025 the Council wrote and informed him that the 150 points were being deducted because they were awarded for sharing a bedroom with his son. It said that this information had been provided by him and supported by his GP. The letter did not say why it was removing them.
6. Mr X asked the Council to review his points allocation in March. Reviews are carried out under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. The recommended timescale for completing a review is 8 weeks according to government guidance. In April Mr X complained to the Council because he had not heard about his review outcome within a month.
7. The Council issued a response on 15 April advising that he was not entitled to further points on his current housing circumstances. The Council says the delay in completing was due to an offer being made to him which ended the review process. When he declined the offer the review was re-instated. As it was within the 8-week period for non-statutory reviews this was not fault.
8. The review advised Mr X that he could continue through the formal complaints procedure if he remained dissatisfied with the outcome and he escalated his complaint to the next stage. This did not result in a change in his points allocation.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. Mr X was advised about his points deduction in January. The points were awarded on the basis that he shared a bedroom which was not the case. Mr X says he shares a living room with other family members but this is not the same space standard element. If he had been made an offer on the basis of the additional 150 points this would have been invalid because it is an offence to provide incorrect or misleading information on a housing application. this would have cause injustice to other applicants with correct points calculations.
10. Mr X was able to submit a non-statutory review request to challenge the decision and it was completed within 8 weeks. Any delay he felt he experienced within the first month of his review request did not cause any injustice because the review outcome did not change his priority and upheld the January decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a housing application. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from its decision to change the priority of Mr X’s application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman