Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint against the Council because there is insufficient evidence of fault it’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council failed to properly consider a number of factors, including the role of her children as young carers, in combination when assessing her housing allocation.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. Miss X applied to the Council’s housing register in 2025. She is an existing social housing tenant in a 3-bedroom housing association property. She has four children and her family has medical reasons for moving to a larger home. The Council awarded band 3 priority for overcrowding and Band 3 for moderate medical needs.
6. Miss X was dissatisfied with the priority banding and asked for a review. The Council carried out a review under s.166A of the Housing Act 1996 part 6.
7. The Council considered the medical and school letters provided having extended the deadline for submission to ensure that Ms X had an opportunity to provide any additional documents. This indicates the Council considered the relevant information and applied its policy. I have seen no evidence of fault such as failure to consider key evidence, or misapplication of the policy.
8. The Council review concluded that her banding priority was correct for the overcrowding needs of her family as she is one bedroom short. It also said that Band 3 was the appropriate medical priority for her situation because she does not meet the higher thresholds for Band 1 or 2.
9. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to say whether the Council’s decision was correct. Unless there was fault in the Council’s decision-making process, we cannot comment on the decision reached. 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 Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme. We recognise that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas.
11. We recognise Ms X experienced distress because of the existing accommodation arrangements. However, distress alone does not amount to injustice unless it is caused by fault. Given that, we have not identified fault in the Council’s actions, we cannot say that the injustice complained of was caused by maladministration.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint against the Council because there is insufficient evidence of fault in it’s decision-making to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman